Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Greyhawk timeline


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. a lot of the keep votes are opinions rather then policy based and the policy basis for a standalone article is that the subject has significant third party sources that discuss the subject in detail, Noone seems to be arguing that this is the case so consensus by policy is pretty clear Spartaz Humbug! 11:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

World of Greyhawk timeline

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is one reference that talks about the development of this campaign... but not about the actual timeline. All the other references are books, manuals, and other material from business partners affiliated with the original publisher. Not enough to WP:verify notability. Also fails the policy that Wikipedia is WP:NOT, because this article is inherently designed to do nothing more than extract plot from books and games and summarize them attached to fictional dates with uncertain accuracy. Any information that isn't plot is already in the main Greyhawk article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've posted a note at the D&D project talk page in the hopes this can be fixed up Hobit (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as a derivative list that would normally be on the (rather hefty) Greyhawk article (i.e. size limitations preclude it being mentioned there). The history is a key (not minor) plot element that is integral to many of the subsequently written adventures. Many list articles are restricted to repeating information in one or more parent articles, but are used for format reasons (i.e. ease of reading) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Casliber. Plus, there have been some improvements since the nomination was made. At worst, a redirect to Greyhawk will preserve the edit history. BOZ (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic doesn't have reliable third-party sources and whatever sources are found about it aren't independent of the subject. It's an unnecessary content fork that also fails the criteria of the general notability guideline and it's more an unneeded exposition of all possible details. In my opinion it also doesn't meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists either. For all these reasons and the reasons exposed in the nomination, I believe that it is within the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the gamespy article is clearly a reliable third-party source. The interview at ENworld is more debatable (is enworld reliable in this context? I'd say yes.  Is an interview of the author a third party source?  Again I'd say yes.) Hobit (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article at Gamespy is not about the "World of Greyhawk timeline" but about "The Complete History of Dungeons & Dragons" which means that it does not prove in any way the notability of the topic "World of Greyhawk timeline". Even if it were about "World of Greyhawk timeline", it would be only a single source which still doesn't prove that the topic has significant coverage, not merely a mention in a single source. "Dungeons & Dragon" is notable, "World of Greyhawk" is notable, but not this timeline with no real-world coverage that is written with an in-universe perspective. As for ENworld, it is a forum, so in no way it is a reliable source and therefore it doesn't work for notability either. In fact, it shouldn't be used at all. Per WP:V, if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it, and the topic "World of Greyhawk timeline" does not have them. The notability of "World of Greyhawk" is not inherited to every single content fork related to it. Jfgslo (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The ENworld interviews of Gary have generally been accepted as a RS. There was confirmation from the admins there that it was really Gary and reliable source publications confirmed it (no I don't have the link at the moment, it came up at WP:RSN at some point I believe).  I think Gary is a reliable source. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of that, that source is not independent of the subject and it's not a reputable publication, so it doesn't show notability, only factual accuracy. It is only one primary source, a creator of Dungeons & Dragons, not several independent sources that show significant coverage. On top of that, the topic of the interviews is not "World of Greyhawk timeline", but question and answers about Gygax's work in Dungeons & Dragons. The article does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia so there is no reason to keep it. Jfgslo (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * keep While there are a lot of primary sources in the article, they don't negate the ones that count toward WP:N (see my comments above). So seems to meet WP:N. I'm less sure this is a reasonable topic for a Wikipedia article, but viewed as a spinout of the main article I suppose it is reasonable. Hobit (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: An article dedicated to the chronology of a fictional universe (= plot summary) is a violation of WP:PLOT which forbids to write plot-only articles. Chronologies aren't acceptable on Wikipedia, even viewed as spinouts, period. As for the Development section, it doesn't have anything to do with the chronology (but more with how the creator came up with the story, which is already covered in a much better way in Greyhawk) and was obviously slapped on it only in an attempt to game WP:PLOT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say a fictional timeline in this case isn't a plot any more than a list of fictional characters is a plot. Both are elements of a fictional story. We have plenty of articles like this  for example.  Are you claiming that too should be deleted?   If not, I'd like to understand what you see as the difference. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't know where you picked this strange reasoning that because this article is up for AfD we wouldn't do the same for others. Many chronology articles (even the Harry Potter one) have been deleted recently, because people agree that these violate WP:PLOT, so don't worry, there won't be any exception. And summing up the plot in a list format isn't any different from a prose summary. As for character lists, there are generally secondary sources about their creation, or their reception, which usually help building a good article that is not entirely plot...I agree with you that in some cases there are no secondary sources and these articles violate WP:PLOT, but it's not a reason for keeping this one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just checking for consistency. I'm still unclear how chronology==plot, especially in a case like this.  I mean _what_ plot?  It's a history of a fiction place where no one book/module/whatever probably covers more than three of the things on the list.  Star Wars is very similar.  Harry Potter, well, significantly less so. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see how a list of events in a fictional world would not be plot. Are you sure you know what "plot" means ? The plot is the fictional world and everything that happens inside it. Plot = story, thus, story in chronological order = plot. I'm not going to paraphrase endlessly, so I hope you get the idea.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine how that can't be viewed as a personal attack. If you'd like a response, please rephrase. 03:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to rephrase. I'm perfectly right, the discussion I had with you established that you have a definition of the word "plot" that diverges from dictionary entries that I quoted. If you can't find anything to answer to my arguments, that's your problem, but don't make allegations just to avoid admitting you're wrong.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I removed all the copy/pasting from Greyhawk that had nothing to do with the chronology and was only an attempt to game WP:PLOT. If people need to copy unrelated content from the main article in order to make this one seem more complete or to have secondary sources, then it's a sign that the Chronology can't stand on its own. (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I restored the development section since an explanation of how the timeline came to be is encyclopedic material. I agree that the previous version was too long, so I rewrote a very condensed version. Note that the material that was previously removed included a third-party reference from White Dwarf that is unique to this article--that is, it is not found in the World of Greyhawk article--and is particular to the concept of the development of the timeline. Guinness323 (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And I removed all the copy/pasting that is redundant with Greyhawk, and left only what is strictly about the timeline. I don't see the point of adding the full account of the creation of Greyhawk (whether the game itself or its fictional world), already efficiently covered in the main article, except gaming WP:PLOT by adding text only to trick people into thinking the article is not plot-only. If this is the timeline article, then it should only mention the timeline, the history of Greyhawk already has its own article. If the only way you can think of making this timeline article encyclopedic is turning it into Greyhawk n°2, then I think you should propose a merge, if it is not deleted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted and started a discussion on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Acceptable summary article. NOT PLOT says that Wikipedia coverage of a fiction should not be limited to the plot: a very good principle for which there is general consensus.  It does not dictate the content of any particular article among the group of articles that may deal with that fiction. There have various attempts to say that no article about any aspect of a fiction may deal only or almost only on the plot, but they have never achieved consensus. There's no firm rule, so there's no point in referring to one. (I think there ought to be  rule: if the plot is sufficiently complicated, the rule should be that an article dealign with it separately is a very good method of organization--but I do not think there is any consensus for that either, and I don't try to make it the way I want by merely stating it firmly.   In this particular case, the article is ppropriate as part of the group  of articles.    DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your claims, WP:PLOT directly limits articles content, and there is clear consensus on what articles about fiction should not be. They should not be this. Oh, by the way, what happened to the general notability guideline, which says that a topic is notable only if it was covered in reliable independant sources ? Are you going to pretend that it doesn't limit content either ? Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The information in this article could be added to World of Greyhawk, whose notability as the second-ever D&D campaign setting is not in question. However, this is a long article on its own, and World of Greyhawk already borders on being too long. Having a separate wiki for the timeline simply breaks out that info for readers who wish to explore the topic further, without any loss of notability for the group of articles about this world. Guinness323 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is indiviual and not inherited, it doesn't work for a "group" of articles. Each article must have its own independant secondary sources, which is of course not the case here. If this article is too long, that's because it is over-detailed trivia.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 05:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Wiki is not paper. The topic is notable and the information is verifiable. Thus, whether it exists on this page or the main article is purely a stylistic matter. The two pages are too long to combine, ergo stylistically this should be a separate page. The idea that because it is on a separate page the information is no longer valid for inclusion is simply false/contrary to founding principles. It would essentially force all information on any given topic to be constrained onto a single page - in violation of our style guidelines and common sense. --12.42.51.28 (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia also isn't a plot-only description of fictional works or a fansite. All articles must meet the general notability guideline or the stand-alone lists guideline. This article does not meet either of them. The topic does not have notability because there are no independent reliable secondary sources about it. Two pages too long with redundant material means that one of the pages is an indiscriminate collection of information. Nothing from this timeline is necessary for the Greyhawk or the Dungeons & Dragons related articles. Wikipedia is not a paper but that policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies. The article World of Greyhawk timeline is in violation of the policies and guidelines. It doesn't even follow the related Manual of Style for fictional topics. Jfgslo (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I, and apparently nearly all of the other respondents, disagree with the opinions you have expressed above. Greyhawk certainly is referenced in reliable secondary sources and Wiki is not paper certainly does not only 'allow', but encourage inclusion of detailed information relevant to notable topics. --12.42.51.27 (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You said it yourself, relevant information for notable topics. With a complete lack of independent third-party sources, this article is not notable, no matter what fans of the series may think, and it doesn't cover relevant information either. Jfgslo (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the point that was trying to be made is that the general consensus on the page seems to be that you are incorrect.Guinness323 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And the point I'm trying to make is that AfD reviews are not simply a majority vote. Valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. And so far arguments in favor of keeping the article are unsupported statements, such as claiming that the topic is notable despite that there are no independent sources covering it. Jfgslo (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the only ones who want to keep this article are either fans or people involved in its redaction, and they tend to be partial and ignore every issue with the article, just because they like the topic. In spite of all the fan enthusiasm here, no one was able to bring forth a single independant secondary source, meaning the topic is not notable, whatever the consensus may be at this moment. AfDs are not supposed to be a contest of "who will gather the most people", but whether we can verify the notability of a given topic (that's why an AfD result can be based on the strength of arguments instead of merely being a head-count). And it does not matter how many fans claim without proof that a topic is "notable", no matter how unsourced/unsourceable the article is, just because it happens to be their favorite fiction. This is not opinion, but fact: this article violates several core policies, is not notable, and thus doesn't deserve to be here, period. No matter how much our dear IP may like Greyhawk, (s)he is absolutely wrong in claiming that individual articles would not have to meet the general notability guideline on their own, and wouldn't have to comply to WP:PLOT, and Jfgslo is right when he reminds the IP that WP:NOTPAPER is "not a free pass for inclusion", something that fans tend to conveniently "forget". The IP and others offered us their biaised point of view as fans, but it doesn't change the way WP works, and contributors are not "incorrect" when they remind fans that there are limits even on Wikipedia.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Folken, your claim that all people voting keep are doing so because they are fans is a bad faith assumption. Your claim that the article is unsourceable is disproved by the fact that it has sources. Ditto Jfgslo's claim that it has no independent sources. That is simply false. They are listed right there at the bottom of the page. Could it use cleanup and more sources? Yes. But the claims that it is unsourced / unsourceable are clearly false. Yes, valid arguments carry more weight in deletion reviews... so why are you restricting yourself to assuming bad faith of those disagreeing with you and making false statements about sourcing? --12.42.51.27 (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Folken de Fanel is not making false statements about sourcing. As I mentioned earlier, none of those sources prove notability because they are not reliable third-party sources independent of the subject and none of them treat the topic "World of Greyhawk timeline". The claim is not that the article is unsourced but that the topic does not meet the general notability guideline because the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Any topic can be covered in detail using primary sources or material published by sources dependent of the topic, as this article does, but that does not mean that any topic is notable. And this article doesn't even use sources that treat the topic in detail. The article may be factually accurate but the topic is not notable. And no keep vote has addressed this problem so your claim that the article is notable is unsupported. And it is not the only problem, as it has been pointed out by others. Jfgslo (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Making "false statements" is a serious accusation, and if this doesn't stop I will ask for the IP to be blocked (and checkusered). Yes, the article technically has sources, but they are attributed to content that is not related at all with the subject (which is the timeline), as it was noted by Sgeureka and Sandstein. All the sources in the article come in fact from a copy-pasting of the main Greyhawk article, which is not acceptable for several reasons. So in fact, there is not a single secondary source concerning the Greyhawk timeline.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Since the AfD started, a major part of Greyhawk was copied to this article, not only lacking the correct attribution per the GFDL (copyvio), but also making it redundant with the main article. I've participated in lots of fictional timeline AfDs, and the vast majority of these articles (like this one) had the same problem and hence were deleted: their intention was to be a retelling of a fictional timeline, i.e. nothing but a plot summary in in violation of WP:NOT. The section "The Greyhawk timeline" (the majority of the article) has to go either way, the rest (section "Development of the original timeline") is redundant to the main article, and so nothing but deletion makes sense to me. – sgeureka t•c 13:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The timeline itself is merely a non-concise plot summary (WP:PLOT) of the various works presented in a non-encyclopedic format (using the fictional timeline rather than real chronology as a framework). The development section can go back to the main article.  Sandstein   06:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.