Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smallville timeline
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 except signature updates.
The result was DELETE. There is claim and counter-claim here, with people trying to be too pithy-one-sentence-clever and this reduces the signal information available to the closing admin. It strikes me clearly from reading the debate that this is viewed as original synthesis , and I do think that claim is largely justified, as there are various editorial excitements included in the text, such as "The town of Smallville survives its share of living hell as the U.S. Civil War erupts", as an arbitrary example. There is also a general view that this is excessively detailed for its subject material, is almost entirely in-universe and that it (demonstrably) is almost totally lacking in sources — effectively the three death-knells sounding from the complaints re WP:PLOT. Also, I observe that, whilst we are not bound by 'precedent', an example is given of a topically similar article that was deleted last year on similar grounds. The clear-cut sway of the debate here is to delete and the challenges to the policy-based complaints are insufficient to persuade the deleters to change. Two side notes: (i) the injunction is now lifted and (ii) the relisting was an unnecessary burden to AfD when there was plenty of debate included prior to the relisting. Relisting is not the pursuit of a trivial decision for the closing admin, it is for the extension of a debate so thin that not even a 'no consensus' can be meaningfully determined. Splash - tk 00:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Smallville timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
There isn't a single source on the page, which also means there isn't one asserting why this topic needs its own article. Not to mention that it's nothing more than plot information. A lot, if not most, of the information in this article is basic episode information covered on the season pages. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can't believe anybody actually spends timed writing (or reading) this, but it's no less strange or obsessive than many of the things on Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The lead already says it is based in original research, and the rest seems like a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, i.e. no (sourced) analysis etc. General precedent shows that fictional timelines have a hard time surviving AfD. – sgeureka t•c 07:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, just plot and original synthesis based on the plot. Jay32183 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOT, and it's also written entirely in-universe (not a deletion reason, but another bad thing about the article). TJ Spyke 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Probably better suited to a Smallville fansite, but at least it's somewhat useful to anyone new to the series who may look it up on Wikipedia to learn more about the show. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All fictional articles must be based on the real world. Fictional timelines rarely, if ever, are written from a real world perspective. They are typically written from an in-universe perspective, which is not allowed for fictional topic articles. Regardless, if someone wants to know about Smallville, why aren't they looking at Smallville (TV series)#Season overview, or Smallville (season 1), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Smallville timeline is linked in one high traffic area, that's in the "Season overview" section of the main page. The only place that I can think of that it is linked in is the Smallville template at the bottom of every page. Without the knowledge that you'd gain by reading the season articles, this page doesn't make much sense, because it loosely ties particular episode elements together. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider this barred by the Arb Com injunction,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Temporary_injunction], "For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction. Passed 4 to 0 at 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)."
This is an article dealing with video episodes, placing the plots on a timeline. I have discussed this with the nom on my talk page, and warned him about the injunction, though after he placed this nom. Having been warned, I ask him to withdraw this AfD. DGG (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the injunction talks about articles regarding television episodes and characters: this mentions them, but isn't about them. So, no actual justification, then? --Calton | Talk 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my line of thinking after I read the injunction, and why I didn't withdraw it afterward. This isn't about television episode articles, or character articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider that sophistry, though well-intentioned. The wording of "articles regarding episodes and characters", would I think cover anything involving them in a more than incidental way--a biography of an actor or writer would not be covered, one about the plot or characters of themes would be. Thats what this is, though its organized as a timeline. Look at any of the years: it gives that part of the bio of the fictional characters or the general story. Before the injunction, articles like this were typically argued against for just this reason: they duplicated the coverage of the plots of the episodes. I cannot enforce my view on this, and, being involved in these discussion on one side, would not take action as an administrator in any event. But I shall ask at arbcom. I'll give the link.
- I've asked at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop#Apparent violation of injunction but I am not sure that was the right venue.DGG (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of sophistry: there's the attempt at finely argued legalisms and searching for loopholes to avoid addressing the actual issues on the table, and the bog-standard questions regarding complete lack of sources, original research, and just plain triviality. Or are end-runs around the core policies at the heart of Wikipedia acceptable? --Calton | Talk 18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've said this before but I will repeat it for the sake repetition; I believe these types of AfD should continue on as normal, if the the result is delete/redirect/merge then this AfD should be tagged with Template:Fictwarn and the motion carried out once the injunction is over. I personally believe it is in the spirit of the injunction that this sort of stuff be included in the injunction but I'm not an arbcom member and I've heard it been said a few times that this sort of stuff is not strictly included in the injunction. --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of sophistry: there's the attempt at finely argued legalisms and searching for loopholes to avoid addressing the actual issues on the table, and the bog-standard questions regarding complete lack of sources, original research, and just plain triviality. Or are end-runs around the core policies at the heart of Wikipedia acceptable? --Calton | Talk 18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop#Apparent violation of injunction but I am not sure that was the right venue.DGG (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider that sophistry, though well-intentioned. The wording of "articles regarding episodes and characters", would I think cover anything involving them in a more than incidental way--a biography of an actor or writer would not be covered, one about the plot or characters of themes would be. Thats what this is, though its organized as a timeline. Look at any of the years: it gives that part of the bio of the fictional characters or the general story. Before the injunction, articles like this were typically argued against for just this reason: they duplicated the coverage of the plots of the episodes. I cannot enforce my view on this, and, being involved in these discussion on one side, would not take action as an administrator in any event. But I shall ask at arbcom. I'll give the link.
- Delete. No sources, original research, blah blah. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, viz sourcing and more importantly notability. Referencing arbcom's injunction in this instance of clearly unnotable content is casuistical. Eusebeus (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, Sin Harvest, it is also appropriate to discuss the actual issue in the meantime. So, Keep -- as an appropriate summary article. Then notability needs to belong only to the subject as a whole, which is Smallville; treating an aspect of it in a separate subarticle article is really an editorial decision on whether or not to split an article. The material is sourcable, since it all comes from the various comics, etc--agreed that it should be sourced explicitly, but it is certainly sourceable if one knows the material. It is not OR, for OR requires synthesis--the assemblage of facts open to plain view, without interpreting them, is not OR, but the way all WP articles are constructed. The addition of the publication dates for the various events will deal with any question about RW content, also. Keep and improve. Most articles of this type need improvement. . DGG (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the OR claims refer to the time stamps, which is the basis of the article. I admit I don't know how Smallville works, but unless there are subtitles that say "Early 1840s" or "Late 1961", this article is originally researched (IMO). – sgeureka t•c 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We also shouldn't be gaming the system to use WP:SS to not follow WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. It is not simply an editorial decision to split an article into pieces that do not meet the inclusion criteria; that is not, nor has it have ever been, the intent of the summary style guideline. Jay32183 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well they are essentially contradicting policy/guidelines one says you should split the article when it gets too long while the other says you shouldn't have an article that is unable to assert notability on its own, so what happens when you have an article that has become too long yet the content can not assert its own notability after a split? --Sin Harvest (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That should generally never be an issue with plot information, because Wikipedia isn't one big plot summary. Information split from an article is typically real world information (if it's a fictional topic) and thus probably sourced by secondary sources to begin with. Articles must have more than just plot information. This page is nothing but plot information and some editors' original research tying information from select episodes (and some information that wasn't in the show at all) together as if that was the show's intention. I don't know what page one could say this needed to be split from, since any important plot information is covered on its respective season page. Anything else is just indiscriminate information from the show itself. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify what this page is actually "summarizing", since DDG says it's "an appropriate summary article". Starting from the beginning, the "Na-Man" story only consisted of about two episodes of the show. Countess Theroux was a side-story arc that lasted for most of season four, but ended with season four. The Dailey Planet bit is rather random. The building itself was only recently significant in the show's history, and the statement in this article about it being founded in 1775 is based purely on the comics (no relation to this television show). Ezra Small is someone that was only developed on one of the WB's viral sites, and has rarely - if ever - been mentioned on the show. Then we start getting this birth dates for characters in the show, yet birthdays have never really been discussed. They'd have birthdays on the show, but the actual date has never really been stated. It's original research to assume that the day the show airs is the day the fictional universe takes place in. You might be able to deduce years, but any more specific and you're stretching. It's even incorporating random recurring characters in the mix. Why not all characters that appear on the show? How is "Mid November, 2006: Raya visits Clark, and together they fight Baern, Raya dies battling Baern." an appropriate summary of the show? The seasons themselves are already summarized on the main page, and then the season pages break down each individual episode. This page not only has no feasible structure about what it chooses recall for the reader, but it's about 90% redundant to what is already in place. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well they are essentially contradicting policy/guidelines one says you should split the article when it gets too long while the other says you shouldn't have an article that is unable to assert notability on its own, so what happens when you have an article that has become too long yet the content can not assert its own notability after a split? --Sin Harvest (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We also shouldn't be gaming the system to use WP:SS to not follow WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. It is not simply an editorial decision to split an article into pieces that do not meet the inclusion criteria; that is not, nor has it have ever been, the intent of the summary style guideline. Jay32183 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the OR claims refer to the time stamps, which is the basis of the article. I admit I don't know how Smallville works, but unless there are subtitles that say "Early 1840s" or "Late 1961", this article is originally researched (IMO). – sgeureka t•c 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is basically a list sub-article. I say we let the Smallville Wikiproject fix it up. Ursasapien (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no Smallville Wikiproject, and if there was one, Bignole would probably be their most active editor. – sgeureka t•c 10:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's right. There isn't one, and I'm basically the most active editor for these pages. This page right here is run by anons. Regardless, still blatantly fails WP:NOT#PLOT. There was no reason to split this stuff off originally, and I've already explained how most of the stuff on the page is hardly even notable in the series itself. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no Smallville Wikiproject, and if there was one, Bignole would probably be their most active editor. – sgeureka t•c 10:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Blatant violation of WP:PLOT, not to mention WP:NOR, as the lead section openly admits. I don't think timelines for fictional universes are generally suitable for Wikipedia, and this one certainly fails policy. Maybe move it to the Smallville wikia if it isn't already there? Paul 730 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If one person is the only major editor for the related articles, then perhaps it shows that others need to edit also. It's OWNership to decide by oneself on how to organise things, and try to delete the pages that do it differently. One person may not feel a particular arrangement useful. I find it helps the understanding of the material, though those more familiar find the more detailed accounts sufficient. Another example of how parts of the encyclopedia without sufficient general attention can be unrepresentative of encyclopedic needs. DGG (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Page statistics. There isn't really anyone that stands out. One editor with 18 edits, and another with 6, then it starts trickly down to just single edits. The editor with 18 edits hasn't visited the page since March 2007. If you took out all the OR, there isn't much left that isn't already stated elsewhere. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unsourced, non-notable, useless, fancrufty - one of those. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete IMHO this isn't under the injunction, but since the case should close pretty soon, the point will soon be moot. That said, these sort of "timelines", like theBuffyverse chronology that was deleted last year, are original research, trying to tie together primary sources in a novel way, creating a new synthesis of primary source materials. --Phirazo 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 100% per reasoning of the nominator. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Smallville on Wikipedia's most active contributor. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Coherent, well-organized, discriminate, verifiable sub-article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a single source constitutes "veriifiable"? I can point to several things in this timeline that never occurred in the show at all, so saying the show verifies it won't hold water. See my comment above where I list all the problems with the content and its "verifiability". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can rent DVDs of the show to verify the information. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, you must have missed the part where I said, "I can point out several things in this timeline that never occurred in the show at all." That means, since there are no sources in the article, and the events didn't occur on the show itself, you cannot verify by citing some episode (i.e. This article is not verifiable). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is anything that is inaccurate, then please do remove it, but considering that the show exists on TV and on DVD much of its is very much so verfiable. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what this AfD will do. Regardless, I've already explained how this "timeline" loosely ties events that barely had anything to do with one another on the show itself. Just because it happens in the show doesn't make it relevant to the show's fictional timeline. If John Doe appears on the show, then John Doe's personal history is not relevant to this timeline. Heck, the first section ties the person that left the information in the caves, with the person that left the crystals, when at no point in the show did they ever say they were one in the same. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is anything that is inaccurate, then please do remove it, but considering that the show exists on TV and on DVD much of its is very much so verfiable. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, you must have missed the part where I said, "I can point out several things in this timeline that never occurred in the show at all." That means, since there are no sources in the article, and the events didn't occur on the show itself, you cannot verify by citing some episode (i.e. This article is not verifiable). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can rent DVDs of the show to verify the information. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a single source constitutes "veriifiable"? I can point to several things in this timeline that never occurred in the show at all, so saying the show verifies it won't hold water. See my comment above where I list all the problems with the content and its "verifiability". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - despite undoubted sincerity and good faith of nomination, anyone who nominates something knowingly in the face of an ArbCom injunction is showing prima facie evidence of judgement so awful as to suggest deleting all nominations from this nominator, to avoid wasting precious AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I nominated it before I knew what the injunction was, and how "strict" it was regarding merging, deleting or anything to do with fiction related articles. So, "keeping" an article just because you disagree with my AfD'ing something fiction when there was an injunction in place (one, again I add, that I wasn't aware of in its entirety, having not read the ArbCom till after I AfD'd this article) is rather immature. You're basically making you opinion to keep the article, not on the article's merit of deletion, but rather on your opinion that I should not AfD any fiction related article to begin with. Just to point out, DGG did ask if this timeline was covered by the injunction, and the only two people to respond to him agreed that it was not covered by the injunction. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondly, there is no such thing as "wasting AfD time". If something doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of being deleted (i.e. the AfD was made in extreme bad faith) then that is evident from the start and the AfD can be quickly closed. If the AfD has merit (and the numerous deletion votes suggests that this does, regardless of the fact that any outcome won't be put into action until the injunction is removed), then you cannot "waste time" reviewing the article. It is YOUR decision to review an article based on the concerns of the nominating editor. If you feel your time was "wasted" reading it, that's an opinion and probably would weigh on your decision to support a deletion of the article. Given that AfD is a community based decision process, and not part of some systematic program that would require "time well spent", there is nothing to waste. You cannot even claim that it is a waste of time for the Admin closing the AfD to read all that is being discussed, because there is a big banner at the top of this page that says whatever the outcome, the page cannot be deleted/merged/etc etc until the injunction is over. So, the "closing" Admin can simply walk away from the article, or come give their own opinion. The only positive thing about this AfD existing in the face of the injunction is the extended time it gets to find more neutral opinions about the article's existence, and thus achieving a more clear consensus about the outcome. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually a lot of time is needlessly lost on AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An "essay" against deletion in general and how deleting an article "wastes" the time of those that spent working on it, not about "wasting AfD time". There is a difference between what you just cited and what David was referring to (or at least, what I understood David to be referring to). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Every second myself or other editors who do and are able to find references for articles have to waste arguing to keep articles in AfDs that for whatever reason someone does not personally like is time not spent finding referencing and improving articles. If the article is not a hoax, copy vio, or personal attack, then there's almost never a reason for deletion that benefits our value as a reference. Thus, a tremendous amount of energy is misplaced that could be used more constructively. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think that I sit here all day trying to delete articles? I've turn 3 television articles into Featured Articles. I've turned a fictional character into a featured article. I've been working my Wiki butt off to develop several other articles, so please don't flash that sanctimonious attitude at me. I put in my time in developing articles, and when I find articles that I truly believe do not, and will not, meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, then I do what I must to see that it is rectified, in some way shape for form. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Every second myself or other editors who do and are able to find references for articles have to waste arguing to keep articles in AfDs that for whatever reason someone does not personally like is time not spent finding referencing and improving articles. If the article is not a hoax, copy vio, or personal attack, then there's almost never a reason for deletion that benefits our value as a reference. Thus, a tremendous amount of energy is misplaced that could be used more constructively. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An "essay" against deletion in general and how deleting an article "wastes" the time of those that spent working on it, not about "wasting AfD time". There is a difference between what you just cited and what David was referring to (or at least, what I understood David to be referring to). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually a lot of time is needlessly lost on AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I encourage you to focus more on helping to improve and expand other articles rather than attempting to diminish other editors' contributions and efforts. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I improve and expand more articles than you could possibly imagine. I do my part, trust me. How about you realize that this is an encyclopedia, and not a fan house where we should have an article on every single minute piece of information in the world (regardless of how notable or important it is anywhere). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the Five pillars, we are an encyclopeia AND a specialized encyclopedia and almanac. We are NOT paper. Our founder said we are trying to provide the sum total of human knowledge. If it is important or notable anywhere and is factually accurate there is no reasonable or non-elitist rationale not to have an article on it. We should not discriminate against our contirbutors and readers. Especially because people donate money to Wikipedia. Thus, we should tolerant with articles we don't particularly personally care for. Time is much better spent improving and building articles we do care about than attempting to diminish other editors and readers' experiences on our project. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and allow the Smallville wiki project to decide how best this information should be presented. Catchpole (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A quote from above: "There is no Smallville Wikiproject, and if there was one, Bignole would probably be their most active editor." – sgeureka t•c 22:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's wait until this Thursday's episode when (I'm NOT making this up, check the TV listings) Pete Ross (Sam Jones III) returns to the show and gets superpowers after using kryptonite chewing gum.... history in the making? Mandsford (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you being serious, or just trying to lighten the mood? That episode will have nothing to do with this timeline. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just trying to lighten the mood. I'm gathering that I'm mistaken about this being a new episode, so people have already seen it and factored it in. Once the new, post-strike episodes begin, then of course every new chapter adds to the continuity that the viewers have been following since 2001. Mandsford (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the information is handled in the Smallville episode by seasons articles. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Tommorrow per nom. The injunction will be vacated by then. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a compelling reason to delete this encyclopedic article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the section carefully. Though it isn't encourage to say "per nom", it clearly states: "That said, nominations vary considerably. In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient." If Jack Merridew believes that the argument was well formed and any major issues addressed, then his "per nom" vote is in support that my argument is sufficient. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this instance it appears to be just a vote, especially based on evidence from the ArbCom case. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, it's probably better to assume good faith with Jack's intentions, then to insinuate that he doesn't already know that Wiki isn't a democracy. That being said, I inferred that Jack made the reference about the ArbCom closing because he looked at the page and assume that there was consensus to delete the timeline (and since this page has been relisted twice during the injunction - as per the rules of the injunction for any AfD involving fictional information, it's probably clear to say that not much more time is necessary to leave this page listed given its already 14 days on the AfD page). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen statements outright made in the ArbCom to the effect of not liking or knowing about these sorts of articles and that alone being the rationale for wanting them deleted, i.e. regardless of the article's merits. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but in order to have consensus we cannot exclude editors willing to write or interested in reading articles they deem encyclopedic just because any of disagree. If the article is not a hoax, copy vio, or personal attack, it is more likely than not consistent with either a general or specialized encyclopedia and the problems identified usually fall under Wikipedia:SOFIXIT rather than outright removal. Even in a worse case scenario, because editors obviously believed the topic worthwhile we would then at least redirect the article, since editors have and do use Smallville timeline as a search phrase, but again that would NOT mean deleting it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, it's probably better to assume good faith with Jack's intentions, then to insinuate that he doesn't already know that Wiki isn't a democracy. That being said, I inferred that Jack made the reference about the ArbCom closing because he looked at the page and assume that there was consensus to delete the timeline (and since this page has been relisted twice during the injunction - as per the rules of the injunction for any AfD involving fictional information, it's probably clear to say that not much more time is necessary to leave this page listed given its already 14 days on the AfD page). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this instance it appears to be just a vote, especially based on evidence from the ArbCom case. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the section carefully. Though it isn't encourage to say "per nom", it clearly states: "That said, nominations vary considerably. In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient." If Jack Merridew believes that the argument was well formed and any major issues addressed, then his "per nom" vote is in support that my argument is sufficient. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a compelling reason to delete this encyclopedic article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has almost no traffic as far as editing is concerned, there has been approximately 100 edits to the page since its inception (with the leading editor at 18 edits not having edited the article for over a year). Ignoring how many people have edited the page, lets do a simple traffic test. The timeline has had about 5000 hits. By comparison, Smallville (TV series) has about 264,000 hits. Regardless of traffic, there isn't a policy that says "if people creat an article for it, and it isn't copyvio then it should stay". This page is a clear violation of WP:PLOT (which is a policy). Not to mention the violations of WP:NOR. Now, can you cite a policy that says this page should stay? I've not come across any real world information regarding the "timeline" itself, but, if you can find it before this AfD closes then I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. That is, real world information that has context for the timeline. Putting something from one of the season pages there that has nothing to do with the timeline won't cut it. This is why timelines are generally deleted (see the above link for all the timeline AfDs), because it is next to impossible to provide any real world coverage, context, information, what have you in order to satisfy WP:PLOT. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has notability to people in the real world and is associated with a recognizable show. The page does NOT violate anything as far as can be seen. And as it does not express any kind of argument, it is not original research. 5,000 hits sounds like a lot for a sub-article and suggests that if anything a redirect without deletion could be a compromise, but I see no valid reason for outright removing the article or any kind of gain for doing so. Having the article means that at some point it can be improved and can serve as a reference for anyone interested. Not having the article means that any possible benefit from having it is lost. By the way, discussion about this particular AFD has apparently started at the ArbCom. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:PLOT? This article is nothing but plot summaries. Secondly, please read all of what I've said above (at the top). I have explained the original research part of this article, I shouldn't have to repeat myself all over again. Not to mention the lack of sourcing for all the information that doesn't appear on the television show at all. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a subarticle of a larger article, it does not fail Plot. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sub-article of what parent article exactly? Because, last time I checked, the 7 season pages where the sub-article for all the plot information. Per WP:PLOT, "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." -- No where in that policy does it says that sub-articles don't have to have real world content. Even WP:FICT only talks about splittin off articles when there is a size issue, which...since I'm not sure what article this ever split from to begin with, there isn't a size issue anywhere. To summarize FICT for you, "Like all Wikipedia articles, spinout articles are edited in accordance with our policies and guidelines; specifically, content in spinout articles must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Such sources can include primary sources - such as the work of fiction itself or commentary from the author or other involved parties - in addition to real-world content from secondary sources." -- "In addition" is the key word that should be looked at. That means that you cannot spin-out pure plot information for size reasons for 2 reasons: (a) You must follow the policies and guidelines we already have (see WP:PLOT) and (b) you need real-world content (see the quote I just gave you for spinning out articles on their own). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a sub-article of the main article on the series and puts the chronology of the show in a coherent context. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an unnecessary sub-article that uses original research to put events of the show in an order that some editors see fit. It is not supported by a single source. You can cite an episode for a particular event, but you cannot cite an episode for the tying of information together, because they haven't done that in the series. Again, please read WP:PLOT and WP:FICT, which both work counter to what you are saying. No real world content in this article, regardless of the original research. The article ties very minor things together, so saying it "puts the chronology of the show in a coherent context" is not accurate. First, the summary section on the main page does a fine just of chronicling the events of each season just fine. Second, this page includes things that have no bearing on the show itself as far as understanding what is going on in the show. Last, Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the show. If you want to know what happened in a show, go watch it. This is the last that needs to be said, because you and I are just wasting our breath debating back and forth with each other, and we're doing nothing but taking up space on this AfD page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I am still far from persuaded that the article should not be kept, I agree that we are indeed using time up that could be better spent improving articles. Have a pleasant afternoon! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an unnecessary sub-article that uses original research to put events of the show in an order that some editors see fit. It is not supported by a single source. You can cite an episode for a particular event, but you cannot cite an episode for the tying of information together, because they haven't done that in the series. Again, please read WP:PLOT and WP:FICT, which both work counter to what you are saying. No real world content in this article, regardless of the original research. The article ties very minor things together, so saying it "puts the chronology of the show in a coherent context" is not accurate. First, the summary section on the main page does a fine just of chronicling the events of each season just fine. Second, this page includes things that have no bearing on the show itself as far as understanding what is going on in the show. Last, Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the show. If you want to know what happened in a show, go watch it. This is the last that needs to be said, because you and I are just wasting our breath debating back and forth with each other, and we're doing nothing but taking up space on this AfD page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a sub-article of the main article on the series and puts the chronology of the show in a coherent context. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sub-article of what parent article exactly? Because, last time I checked, the 7 season pages where the sub-article for all the plot information. Per WP:PLOT, "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." -- No where in that policy does it says that sub-articles don't have to have real world content. Even WP:FICT only talks about splittin off articles when there is a size issue, which...since I'm not sure what article this ever split from to begin with, there isn't a size issue anywhere. To summarize FICT for you, "Like all Wikipedia articles, spinout articles are edited in accordance with our policies and guidelines; specifically, content in spinout articles must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Such sources can include primary sources - such as the work of fiction itself or commentary from the author or other involved parties - in addition to real-world content from secondary sources." -- "In addition" is the key word that should be looked at. That means that you cannot spin-out pure plot information for size reasons for 2 reasons: (a) You must follow the policies and guidelines we already have (see WP:PLOT) and (b) you need real-world content (see the quote I just gave you for spinning out articles on their own). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a subarticle of a larger article, it does not fail Plot. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:PLOT? This article is nothing but plot summaries. Secondly, please read all of what I've said above (at the top). I have explained the original research part of this article, I shouldn't have to repeat myself all over again. Not to mention the lack of sourcing for all the information that doesn't appear on the television show at all. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has notability to people in the real world and is associated with a recognizable show. The page does NOT violate anything as far as can be seen. And as it does not express any kind of argument, it is not original research. 5,000 hits sounds like a lot for a sub-article and suggests that if anything a redirect without deletion could be a compromise, but I see no valid reason for outright removing the article or any kind of gain for doing so. Having the article means that at some point it can be improved and can serve as a reference for anyone interested. Not having the article means that any possible benefit from having it is lost. By the way, discussion about this particular AFD has apparently started at the ArbCom. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:28, 10 March 2008 (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.