Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detailed logarithmic 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. Noting that this AFD wasn't properly set up as a correctly formated bundled nomination so only the main article was deleted. Please review WP:AFD instructions for multiple nominated articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed logarithmic timeline

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Besides the unique format in which events are presented, neither this article nor its simple counterpart (which I am also nominating here) appear to offer much else of encyclopedic value that wouldn't be possible to find in any of the pages listed within Timelines of world history. They could arguably be analogous to the graphical timelines for the Big Bang and the heat death.

This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. My goal isn't to get these articles deleted, but to see how they would fare when held up against the scrutiny of an AfD discussion such as this one. If this discussion ends in favor of retention, the Keep arguments should be able to give curious onlookers a better understanding of why either article ought to be kept around. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is to delete. This timeline is a reflection of a combination of historical topics that can be covered by other articles. We already have Human history, History of Earth, and Chronology of the universe, so this article is redundant. Interstellarity (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my favorite wikipedia article! The logarithmic timescale vs. linear scale(s) provides a focus on things and events, in sequence, rather than time or topics. this amalgamates the different aspects that make up humanity, nature and the universe, regardless of categorization. My vote is keep. 178.197.219.230 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn on this one. I like the combination of information that allows laypeople to make sense, which is a valid reason to keep. On the other hand, every article now needs significant coverage, which might be difficult to find. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page logarithmic timeline. Expressing time in the logarithmic scale is a legitimate approach for analyzing many different phenomena - see Google Scholar search [1]. I think the "detailed timeline" is also a legitimate page, but it must be a lot less detailed by focusing only on the most important events. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am definitely for keeping another page, Logarithmic timeline also linked to this AfD discussion. As about the "Detailed logarithmic timeline", I am less sure, but it seems to pass the criteria for lists, it is sourced, and is not an outright duplication of any other list pages because it uses a different time scale. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very unusual article, it should be deleted along all the other graphical and non graphical timelines articles that have been erased recently.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is this my favorite Wikipedia page as well, it also is easy to understand and goes through just about everything important. It's not too excessive or too short. Yeah there's a few grammatical errors and spelling errors but those can be fixed! Not only that but if you delete this page, it will mean that we would have to go and hunt and search around for a lot of separate pages for a complete and continuous timeline, if you know what I mean. With this page you have it all right here and you don't have to go to multiple pages. CreatureDominic (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !keep votes, kindly provide proper rationale per P&Gs and sources indicating the relevance of keeping this article as a standalone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both The detailed time line is an indiscriminate collection of factoids, largely unsourced and completely lacking standards for inclusion. Yes, it has hundreds of little blue clicky linky numbers, but it would need thousands. Why Euclid and Eratosthenes and not Thales, Eupalinos, Hipparchus, Hypatia...? Why Brahe and not Kepler? Why Boyle, Huygens, and Hooke and not Christopher Wren? Why Descartes (twice) and not Isaac Barrow, Nicole Oresme, any of the Bernoullis... Why Mozart and Beethoven and not Tchaikovsky? Why the telegraph and telephone but not television? And the less detailed one is synthesis. The concept of a timeline is encyclopedic, but the idea of making the axis logarithmic is just a convenient display convention, not a separate concept that needs a page unto itself. XOR'easter (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I tried once to rewrite it, but it should either be started from scratch or be deleted. Even if the format is fine (though I disagree), the content is problematic. The Future starts with the following: Proposed launch of the CNSA's Shensuo. Planned launch of the IMAP. Planned launches of the Solar Cruiser, SWFO-L1, and the Lunar Trailblazer. Planned launch of NASA's SPHEREx probe. Expo 2025 in Osaka, Japan. 2025 Polish presidential election. Planned launch of Luna 27. .... Shensuo seems to be cancelled, Solar Cruiser was just proposed and is not planned, Expo 25 and Polish elections are just local news, not something that should be in the timeline of world history, and Luna 27 is likely to be postponed or rescheduled multiple times. And the whole list is like this, just a collection of future events, with many that will never happen or wouldn't have any lasting impact. Artem.G (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cute gimmick but it definitely makes no sense as a navigational aid, as a timeline, or anything. Logarithmic timelines can be cute illustrations but I doubt a text, encyclopedia-article logarithmic timeline has any definite purpose for an end user, it has no clear inclusion criteria for entries, time intervals are arbitrary, and it seems a nightmare to maintain.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.