Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Courcelles 22:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet the notability requirements as it does not have significant coverage, the references used do not meet the criteria of WP:IRS as they are not independent of the subject, the article consists mainly of original research and, in my opinion, it falls into WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:DEL#REASON. The article also fails to meet the criteria of MOS:AM#Notability and it's more in line with a fansite. More importantly, it doesn't have real-world notability. Any relevant information here should be covered in the main article (Neon Genesis Evangelion) per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, but, since there is not even a serious reference to support a merge and there haven't been solid arguments about a possible merger, the article should be deleted altogether. Jfgslo (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I liked this show but even its staunchest supporters would acknowledge that it's notoriously unclear and a timeline simply isn't possible without drifting well into the realm of fan speculation, which the article doesn't even try to deny: ("Dates are rarely mentioned in the anime, and often there are multiple possibilities."). While I'm sure this might make an interesting starting point for debate on a fansite, it's not material for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just looking at it confuses me and makes me think it was acquired from some EVA wiki. I've never watched the show, but this article's just ridiculous. Lacks coherent refs too. I can definitely see people like Gwern and other editors who've worked on all things EVA stepping in defense. Gwern brashly shot down a PROD a few weeks ago.--Eaglestorm (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per all the reasons listed by Jfgslo. No reliable independant sources and too much OR, entirely in-universe with no element establishing notability. I also don't see the point of merging, the plot summary in the main Eva article is enough, there is nothing new and relevant in this list.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only describes a fictional universe which has no notability on its own. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It says second nomination, but I can't find the first anyway. Anyway, this aids in the understanding of a very notable fictional creation. This series revolutionized the industry, changing things forever as everyone else then went and started copying its format. It has made BILLIONS of dollars, there hordes of merchandise. Many notable fictional works that have grossed billions of dollars, have their own timelines/fictional history articles. Dream Focus 12:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but were any of those other fictions so terribly vague about their events? Also, yeah can't find first AfD for some reason. Can't even find a deletion log for it. NotARealWord (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the fact that the series has made billions of dollars matter? Notability is not inherited and all that after all. Perhaps if an explanation of how this aids our understanding of the series, in a way the episode descriptions don't, might help. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus as an experienced editor, you do realise you are using a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument? LibStar (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost entirely plot points, which is a violation of WP:NOTPLOT, with no secondary information. There is clearly a level of original research going on as well. The fictional timeline also does not contribute to the understanding of the series and is only interesting to a small population of enthusiastic fans. The actual timeline of the series can be better expressed in the preexisting episode and chapter lists and not in this construct that is a text book example of WP:SYNTHESIS. —Farix (t | c) 12:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to main article. It's a content fork that takes the parts of the series WITHOUT real world notability and tries to turn it into an article. We only have articles on topics where we can WP:verify notability, and no one has been able to verify the notability of this timeline. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:51,
  • Delete for the same reason Starbind and Farix have said. Dream focus, don't worry about other articles. if other articles have timelines that are equally notable as this one, then tell us and we'll put it for AfD. It doesn't mean we should keep it.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, irrelevant plot reiteration, no inherent notability. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- clearly violates WP:PLOT and WP:OR, not to mention WP:N. Reyk YO! 23:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete no coverage [1]. interesting that one person votes keep despite very strong consensus here. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you feel the need to take a shot at that one person, instead of just commenting on the AFD itself, and that person is someone you have argued with on many occasions. Dream Focus 02:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it's a wake up call....accept it, or dont.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agree with Bread Ninja, we use WP:CONSENSUS not because I like to vote everything keep regardless policy. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"That one person" often makes votes which are not only regularly contrary to our policies and practice but often bordering on outright nonsense. Such votes are surely ignored by the closing administrator so it's a mystery why "that one person" bothers making them at all. Only "that one person" knows for sure, I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second nomination. The first one thus ended in Keep. The results are based on whatever random group of people show up to comment, and the mood and opinions of the closing administrator. And most of the articles I participate in are kept. Now can we follow the rules and focus on the article, and not go ganging up on someone you disagree with? Dream Focus 20:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first one ended in Keep, did it? Okay, now you've stooped to just making things up. Link to the first AFD discussion that ended in Keep, please. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is automatically generated isn't it? If there was no previous AFD, then why does it say (2nd nomination) up there? Maybe its just a bug, if so my mistake, not trying to deceive people. Dream Focus 07:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The first AFD for this was last month, it mentioned at [2]. Why can we not find a link to that AFD? Dream Focus 20:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was only a PROD that you can verify by look at the article history. We are at this AfD because someone played the "do as if nothing happened and hope that this article will be forgotten". --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why do we bother? S/he has their opinion. i honestly doubt s/he's serious about this. we have yet to find a good reason why it should be kept relating to wikipedia's standards. This is clearly WP:FANCRUFTBread Ninja (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft is an essay, not a guideline or a policy. And once again, you are targeting me, instead of discussing the AFD. Dream Focus 07:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the Ad Hominem attacks against me to be rather immature. [3] Hopefully such viciousness won't discourage others from posting their honest opinions here. Comment on the argument not the editor making it. And back on topic, I'll quote what I said when the Star Wars timeline was up for deletion, it the same case here. "Keep Such a massive series, covering so many books, movies, animated series, merchandise, and having such a vast cultural influence, is notable enough to have side articles about its various aspects. The list helps organize all the series, and is thus quite helpful to those seeking information about it. Dream Focus 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)" I think that fits rather well. The Chronology of the Harry Potter series has been up for deletion four times, it ending in deletion in 2007, then a few weeks later ending in keep, then no consensus for the year 2008, and again no consensus in 2009. I mention these because valid arguments were made in those AFDs, and to point out my case that consensus changes according to whatever random bunch of editors shows up to state their opinions. Wikipedia policy is to ignore all rules WP:IAR. If a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, then ignore it. The information can all be verified in the primary source, no doubting it. It does aid in the understanding of such a notable series, and nothing is gained by destroying it. Dream Focus 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:IAR to work, you need to prove it would improve Wikipedia, which you failed to do. And because there is original research in the article, not everything can be verified in primary sources. You cannot make any comparison to Star Wars because these franchises don't have the same scope (far from it). This list doesn't help to understand the plot of Eva any better than the plot summary in the main article, and much is gained by destroying this article: we get rid of original research and redundant content.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This will only ever be in-universe information, delete also per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dream focus, you point these out but they're not really related to wikipedia standards, only up to User's standards. which some of them may lead to systemic Bias. Point is, it fails alot of other real guidelines such as the ones already mentioned. And just because another timeline out there was nominated for deletion and kept. That doesn't justify it for all timeline articles out there relating to more notable franchises like NGE to be kept as well. Thats what WP:FANCRUFT. Again, you're not mentioning it why it meets general notability guideline, you're the only one against the deletion, and you're reasoning is "other timelines have been kept so this one should too". LIke i said in the gloassary nomination. you're going to have to prove it. now that it's AfD. it's too late to say it can. And i've looked for reliable sources relating to the timeline, and i can safely say, there is no reliable source out there giving any information on the timeline specifically.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are books written about it. [4] Not sure if any are considered notable, but if they covered the series in detail, they probably listed a time line. And policy's must be followed, guidelines are just suggestions, and essays are personal opinion without any bearing at all. Dream Focus 00:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there are books, why not cite them if you have copies of them?!?! DF, you're trying to use other arguments to defend your Keep vote and you attack other editors without even addressing the concerns that prompted this AFD in the first place. You expect every book that covers certain series to have a timeline? You're too speculative. I agree with Bread Ninja's points on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and FANCRUFT. You're right in a way, policies must be followed and deleting this article is part of that. So, no dice. This is happening.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have copies of them, so I don't know what's in them. I'm hoping that a fan of the series has one or more they can quote from. Dream Focus 09:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already transwikied it to http://evangelion.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline a couple of days ago, full history and all. Dream Focus 09:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can we have a default policy at AfD to transwiki to Annex.wikia.com for fiction deletions that are plot or trivia based deletion requests? 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need a bot to do that. Or one that just automatically copied the entire Wikipedia, deleted articles included, somewhere for those of us who are "inclusionist" to work on, and we could then fully abandon this place to those who want to change it from what it once was. This article has been around for five years without anyone having a problem with it, but alas, times have changed, and like so many other articles, people now seek to destroy it. Dream Focus 09:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i've tried to improve it in the past, and make it the least in-universe as possible, but there are some things that can't be done. I dont think its that times changed, its more like people are noticing more flaws.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what passes now as a rationale from the Rescue Squadron. It might help their members know that we'd take them a bit more seriously if they took themselves a bit more seriously in return. That the article stood for years before being prodded and then AfDed is of no concern, that someone found fault with it (and apparently many other editors agree) is. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see the Rescue Squadron anywhere? Did I tag the article for Rescue? Why take a swing at them? Was my comment made as a reason to keep it? Thousands of articles that had been around for years were wiped out once enough deletionist campers altered the previously totally ignored guideline pages, so they could finally have an excuse to delete articles they didn't like. And lets focus on the argument please. Is it not reasonable to assume that with so many books written about it, that the timeline is covered in some of them? Would this count as notable coverage? Dream Focus 21:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiuserNI was right on the ball. And No, you're twisting it. They made the guidelines and policies stricter so we could have better articles. It also depends on what book it is. Such as if they are self-published or not. It also has to be if they are consistently to one another. If one book has one timeline and the other has a different one. then it will be harder to make an article. But for a timeline itself....that would fail WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:IINFO, and other may not be exactly appropriate to have an article. If you find any reception or impact that mentions timeline specifically, then yes, we probably could keep it. But i've looked for information such as that in the past and could not find any.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Thousands of articles that had been around for years were wiped out once enough deletionist campers altered the previously totally ignored guideline pages", ah, there we go, reasoned discussion! I notice there's no rationale for keeping this article that focusses on what it provides the reader. Yes it relates to a well known and profitable franchise, no that does not automatically confer notability. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing arguments are null and void; I have repeatedly pointed out where the sources are but there's no point editing them in because I can predict how this will end. I am fascinated how everyone seems to be dead-sure what to do with this article, yet they are utterly unable to articulate any actual notability guideline that governs timelines. (Do we need a New York Times article about each Wikipedia article? The possibilities are fascinating.) I am especially amused by the argument that Eva is somehow of lesser 'scope' than Star Wars, given that they are both multi-billion dollar franchises. I suppose some multi-billion dollar franchises are more equal than other multi-billion dollar franchises... (What's that, SW has a book on its chronology? There's Eva timeline material - Evangelion Chronicle is the source of all the dates in the timeline that precede the anime series. But wait, Eva is foreign and so all arguments are automatically less convincing when applied to it. What's that, Star Wars has a bunch of video games? Gainax makes most of its money off video games! What's that, there are a few hundred EU novels and whatnot? Eva has a load of official fiction, and just the non-hentai doujinshi outweigh the EU easily 10-1.) I am especially interested in how no one seems interested in going through all of Category:Fictional timelines and deleting them, especially since the only articles in that entire category which could hope to pass muster are 3 or 4 articles like the Star Wars one (unless someone wants to argue that World of Greyhawk timeline or Shannara timeline sold billions while I wasn't looking?).
tl;dr: everything here is IDONTLIKEIT and crying it's a witch!^Wfancruft. Nobody has a clue what notability is or isn't for timelines. --Gwern (contribs) 22:33 23 November 2010 (GMT)
Gwern, tl indeed, but I took time to read. I believe I see a strawman argument or two, nobody is decrying the article for belonging to a foreign franchise for one. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A timeline article is basically, a list article of fictional or non fictional events. It's basically a list article. And if doesn't meet the GNG for list, then we should delete, merge or more. And even more than that it's all plot related information with no real world sources and is merely a guide than anything else. For any article in general, it would need to have real world sources and real world perspective to some degree, and talking about the NGE franchise is whats really null and void in this discussion, Star Wars has various independent games, novels, and films which all of them don't cover in one piece of media, unlike NGE which all of it is mainly explained in one anime series and even then, Star Wars article needs to be fixed. you also admitted that they don't meet the general notability guideline when you said the only ones that seem to pass are those two articles. you're inconsistent. You admit which ones will be kept, yet you don't want to admit their reasoning is correct. And on what grounds do you base WP:IDONTLIKEIT???? We have given more than enough reasoning.
WikiuserNI, don't worry about it, dream focus and gwern always use that excuse. They believe the franchise justifies the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've pointed out in the glossary AfD, I'm very disappointed in Gwern's very aggressive behavior. He defends the article with unwarranted and blind fan rage, to the point of attacking those in favor of deletion. His arguments consist only in derrogatory comments and bad-faithed assumptions/accusations. As a matter of fact I like Evangelion very much, and both Evangelion and Star Wars are foreign to me (and even though I would also gladly delete a Star Wars timeline, I can't deny that Star Wars has a much larger scope than Eva). The general notability guideline exists, we can't help it if this article is clearly overstepping it. If the only sources available are directly tied to the creators of the show, then clearly the subject isn't notable. Attacking other contributors won't change this fact. Also, Gwern, no one will prevent you to nominate for deletion any of the other timeline articles, but here, we comment on this particular AfD and nothing else.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_timeline_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1089093562"