Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe

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. Given that the author has been indefinitely blocked, and the remaining comments are SNOW delete, there's no point in continuing this. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe[edit]

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

Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is all fancruft; it's material that is entirely trivial, adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia and beyond that, doesn't even serve its purpose for fans of Alien, Predator or AvP. The reason for this is that the content isn't even accurate; the three franchises follow separate timelines and continuities, with different scales for the events-- one significant one is that in the Alien continuity, the original founder of Weyland is Peter Weyland, who founded Weyland Corp in 2012, while AvP has a Charles Bishop Weyland who founded a similar-sounding company called Weyland Industries at an undetermined time. Attempting to put these timelines together is not only fancruft, but original research that simply does not work. On top of that, not a single source is secondary; everything is first-party. I appreciate the attempt to build up the Alien, Predator and AvP articles, but this one just doesn't cut it. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 23:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 23:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 23:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 23:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue it is very much valuable and definitely serves its purpose as it clarifies the timeline of events in this fictional universe, akin to the Star Trek timeline article, and I am certain that many fans will appreciate an article such as this (not all fans, of course, but we're not all picky). I would consider your claim of supposed inaccuracy false and arbitrary, as the three franchises don't follow separate timelines/continuities at all, and I would argue that claim of separate timelines as merely regarding personal preference and fan-speculation, because for all intents and purposes they do take place in the same universe, they merely follow different storylines within the same timeline/continuity. It's that simple.
Charles Weyland is clearly presented as the original founder of Weyland Corporation/Weyland Industries, and there's a time gap of eight years (where literally anything could have happened) between the death of Charles Weyland in 2004 and Peter Weyland suddenly rising to power in 2012 as he runs the very same company, so there's absolutely no contradiction here (it would have been a considerable contradiction if Peter founded his iteration of the company while Charles was still alive though) nor is there any actual reason to suggest that any title or brand takes place in a separate universe (after all, Alien vs. Predator intentionally takes place on the same timeline as the Alien and Predator films, so at best you could have argued that Prometheus is the odd-one out here, but even that series has been connected to Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator so the conclusion is unavoidable).
On the contrary, everything flows on and continues relatively beautifully, even if not entirely perfect, but no fictional timeline does. Again, with all the media taken into consideration, for all intents and purposes these franchises takes place in the very same timeline/continuity/universe and there appears to be no actual reason to attempt to separate them other than personal preference. They are simply far too interconnected. Not to mention attempting to separate them would be a confusing mess, and the simplest and most logical approach is to assume continuity, especially when everything fits together so well and when 20th Century Fox doesn't really care how much they connect these franchises as long it makes money, and it obviously does or else they wouldn't still be continuing in persistently promoting and acknowledging a shared universe through films, games, novels, comics, and various other media and merchandise. - TurokSwe (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard delete This is total fancruft without proper sourcing or notability. It's just another example of Turok's continued attempt at forcing AvP cruft onto this website, which is the reason he was topic banned for a time. This is fine for a Wikia, but not Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any minor issues such as proper sourcing can be fixed, and the timeline helps the reader keep track of the events transpiring throughout this elaborate fictional universe in the same manner that for instance the Star Trek timeline article does. I'm not "forcing any fancruft" at all, I'm simply constructing a timeline based upon known material from the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe as it actually exists, and surely you're not suggesting the contents in the article aren't present in existing media relating to these franchises? They do have sources after all. I understand the reality of these franchises being connected is strangely really uncomfortable for some people and therefore I must be triggering some kind of nerve by even suggesting that Alien vs. Predator exists (and it undeniably does), but that would not only seem like an overreaction over mere products of entertainment but it also hardly seem like sufficient reasoning for opposing the existence of this article, and the same can of course be said about using argumentum ad hominem fallacies. I would hope that we could avoid that as it doesn't make for a very civilized and productive discussion. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they share a timeline, then why are you the first person to try and put them together? Your sources certainly don't do that for you. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 15:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's like asking "if my wife is really pregnant then why doesn't the baby have a name yet?" It simply doesn't follow logically that "there is no shared universe" just because nobody up until any specific point has decided to construct and publish a Wikipedia article on the timeline of said universe. When such an article is published or who published it first is completely irrelevant. That's just nonsense. The sources and media listed in the article (as well as multiple sources and media yet to be listed) makes it abundantly clear that a shared universe exists. I don't see how this could possibly be ignored (objectively speaking). - TurokSwe (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense, as I wasn't referring to just Wikipedia; I was referring to the intrinsic basis of this article. The three timelines that you've scraped together into one make for purely original research - they do nothing but contradict each other and are complete fancruft, devoid of any encyclopedic or even accurate value. I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX, as you're mounting the exact same campaign that you received the six-month topic ban for earlier this year. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 19:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed logically incoherent nonsense, as previously explained, and I merely used Wikipedia as an example, but perhaps you'd like to elaborate and clarify. This article is certainly far from being the only place to acknowledge a shared universe, but I suppose that's irrelevant. What supposed considerable contradictions exist within the timeline and how do they actually matter in comparison to contradictions found in other fictional timelines from other franchises? Because to my knowledge there are no clear contradictions present, and certainly none that contradict a shared universe, and all the information listed in the article is verifiably accurate. I'm not sure what you're trying to have said with "NOTSOAPBOX", nor do I see how this situation is in any way similar to the odd situation from earlier this year (other than two individuals in particular reacting strangely and strongly negatively towards my attempts to improve and expand the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator articles, still leading me to increasingly suspect the explanation being some kind of personal anti-AVP-bias which tends to be a big trigger for some fans). - TurokSwe (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH. Alien (franchise) is quite sufficient. Also, the level of detail is way, way, way over the top, e.g. "Last known case of cholera", "Days after his 14th birthday, Peter Weyland is granted a Method Patent for a synthetic trachea (a cure for lung cancer) constructed entirely of synthetically-engineered stem cells. It is his 12th registered patent to date." Clarityfiend (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd like to make the same case in regards to Timeline of Star Trek. - TurokSwe (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally not fond of timelines at all, especially not for in-universe ones for franchises, but I would never compare Star Trek to this.★Trekker (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly? - TurokSwe (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Timelines in general are inferior to articles becuase they don't give much context, as for being in-universe, Wikipedia in general bans in-universe descriptions, this should apply to timelines as well.★Trekker (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd considering Wikipedia is riddled with in-universe descriptions and nobody bats an eye. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're resorting to Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS now. And actually, people do bat eyes at that, and there are tons of people who spend hours trying to fix that issue.★Trekker (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having been on here for many years, I can't say I've noticed. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How unfortunate.★Trekker (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean? - TurokSwe (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad that you have missed people good work.★Trekker (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you mean by that? - TurokSwe (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that it's unfortunate that you havn't seen people put in hard work to make Wikipedia better by removing bad content.★Trekker (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not what I said, and you haven't explained how its "unfortunate" that I've not become aware of somebody's "good work", whatever you're referring to. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Star Trek timeline cites books, including Star Trek Chronology. Is there any equivalent in the Alien franchise? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering there are various technical guides, novels, and comic books I would say, yes, there is such an equivalent here. - TurokSwe (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response delivered. - TurokSwe (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current page doesn't contain the issue that prompted the speedy deletion, and it's not original research in any way as the information is supported by actual sources. There are no separate timelines/continuities, and you have not yet shown this to be the case, and the evidence seem to suggest there is only one single timeline, and even if Fox has not explicitly stated what the timeline or timelines actually look like, for all intents and purposes there is only one single timeline as suggested by the available material. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Turok needs to be pronto topic banned again, for good this time. Before this incident I have already seen him back to his old habbits on Template:Alien (franchise), and I felt it was only a matter of time until he tried something bigger, and this is it.★Trekker (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Why do you resort to this juvenile antagonism towards me and how do you expect ad hominem fallacies to count as a considerable argument? - TurokSwe (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing the exact thing that got you topic banned before. It's not antagonism to point out that you constantly try to push AvP content on this site (the fact that you did so with major copyright violations this time is rather suprising tho, you should be too familar with Wikipedia by now to not fall in to those mistakes) and that that has gotten you topic banned before.★Trekker (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what is this "exact" thing you're referring to? I'm not trying to "push AVP content on this site", I'm merely expanding the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator articles with actual material related to these franchises, and unless you want to argue that AVP doesn't exist, I would say this is a very odd complaint. You're not being very reasonable here by attempting to use every single mistake I make as some sort of argument against me and against the existence of this article. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing AVP cruft, and Stonewalling. Those are the exact things.★Trekker (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you have yet to demonstrate that I've been supposedly "pushing any AVP cruft". And "stonewalling"? Coming from someone who insists on resorting to ad hominem fallacies rather than addressing the issue at hand, that's blatant hypocrisy if I ever saw it. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stonewalling and AvP pushing is why you were topic banned by an admin, if that isn't prof enough then nothing will be in your mind. Why exactly do you think you were topic banned for?★Trekker (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? I don't recall why exactly I was topic banned back then but I remember struggling to find any justifiable reason. Regardless, that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, and you can't resort to ad hominem fallacies every time we have a disagreement. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ridiculous, it's not ad hominem and it's not a problem with me, it's a problem with you Turok. If you don't realze why you were topic banned then you really need to be again, that would clearly be the only way for you to stop.★Trekker (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point regarding ad hominems. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what an ad hominen is Turok. Please stop already.★Trekker (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely the same type of ad hominem reasoning you've been using throughout this entire discussion, and I would likewise wish that you would cease with this continual behavior. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to stop trying to make you understand that you can't just keep doing this on Wikipedia. You can accuse me of ad hominenes and whatever else, but in the end that won't have any affect because it's easy to see that you're keeping being disruptive on this topic.★Trekker (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've been persistently using ad hominem arguments against me rather than having a civilized discussion of the topic at hand but I'm supposedly the one being "disruptive"? - TurokSwe (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete This is blatant original research and WP:SYNTH Wikipedia does not (or should not) do literary analysis, it should only report published analysis from reliable secondary sources. No secondary sources are cited here. No independent reliable source has asserted that these three works of fiction share a common time line or have shared continuity. Without such sources, this simply does not belong. Even with them there might well be a notability issue. This belongs on Wikia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not original research at all, as made clear by the cited sources alone. More sources could of course be added if needed. The cited Alien: The Weyland-Yutani Report and the Fire and Stone comics alone blatantly recognizes the connection between these three franchises. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were true, that doesn't remotly fix the problem that this page completly relies on first hand sources.★Trekker (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? - TurokSwe (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly going to pretend now that you don't know what secondary vs first hand sources are?★Trekker (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, and please calm down, I'm simply struggling to comprehend your argument. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly calm, not sure why you would think otherwise.
Your behavior and attitude would suggest otherwise. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't. Pointing out issues with your editing is not being "uncalm".★Trekker (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I insist, and I didn't say nor imply that pointing out issues with my edits means you're not calm, but your persistence in resorting to ad hominem arguments while avoiding to have a reasonable discussion on the topic at hand you do not seem very calm, and it's something I hope could change. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well Turok then I guess that's simply what you belive, because I don't feel I have been "uncalm" or remotly unreasonable with you. I think you on the other hand have been very unreasonable, which is per usual when you're on the AvP topic.★Trekker (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the ad hominems. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No ad hominems here. Continuing to claim something doesn't make it true.★Trekker (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about dismissive stonewalling. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims are false and I point it out, that's not what stonewalling is.★Trekker (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that either. You've made yourself guilty of a strawman argument. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again, this page relies 100% on sources which are not independent of the subject, thus it fails to show notability.★Trekker (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) TurokSwe please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, or reread them. For several purposes, Wikipedia prefers or even requires secondary sources. It also demands independant sources, which are not quite the same thing. (Independent sources are generally secondary, but not all secondary sources are independent.) Primary sources cannot be used to support an analysis, nor indeed anything that is not fairly explicitly included in the source. Literary analysis in particular demands secondary sources, and also demands that the conclusions be found in the source. Combining multiple sources to reach a conclusion not stated in any of them is WP:SYNTH and that is what we seem to have here. Not acceptable. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not sure what would qualify as a secondary source in this case. Noting that the cited sources are all related and all blatantly implies the same conclusion. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary source would be a notable reliable publication stating "this event in the AvP franchise takes place between this and this".★Trekker (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) comment TurokSwe A secondary source would be an independent reliable critic publishing an essay or article on the relations between the various franchises. Places like NY Review of Science Fiction publish such critical analysis routinely. If none have been published establishing such a time line, or at least asserting a shared continuity, then there can be no such article on Wikipedia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PRIMARY says, in relevant part: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. That isw the point here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully that issue has been fixed now. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Fortressofsolitude.co.za and Bigcomicpage.com are reliable, and they still make up a minority of the sources on the page.★Trekker (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then what would qualify as "reliable" and why? Why does it even matter how much space they take up in the article? - TurokSwe (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sourcing. You're not a new editor Turok. I've seen you make whole articles.★Trekker (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my questions, but if anything it makes it even more confusing as to what you're asking for exactly, and to my mind there's no evident problem with the sources listed. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have put up an ANI about this now.★Trekker (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you have, but you wouldn't bother to explain why? - TurokSwe (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with DESiegel's analysis; apart from the OR/SYN lead paragraph, this is just a list of films from the three franchises, and listing them together is a further exercise in original research. There are no independent reliable sources discussing these as a shared universe with a common timeline. Two sources have been added to address the issue, and both of them discuss one comic book (or a series of books, rather) by one publisher, presented and discussed as a crossover event created by that publisher. So, no, these are three separate worlds, one of which is a combination of the two others – that does not make the two others automatically the same as long as there are no sources discussing that. --bonadea contributions talk 10:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't explained how you concluded that there supposedly exists "three separate worlds" as opposed to a shared universe, and the fact that the Alien vs. Predator franchise exists and that it intentionally takes place on the same timeline as the Alien and Predator franchises makes it abundantly obvious that a shared universe exists. I don't see how this could reasonably be ignored. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reliable secondary source for the claim that it intentionally takes place on the same timeline as the Alien and Predator franchises? The article contains no sources to support the claim of a shared universe beyond AvP, with the single exception mentioned in my post (the comics crossover). --bonadea contributions talk 15:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're asking here. Are you suggesting the Alien vs. Predator franchise, the Fire and Stone comics, the Alien: The Weyland-Yutani Report technical guide etc doesn't exist? If not then this is a very odd issue. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for a reliable secondary source that supports the claim that [the Alien vs. Predator franchise] intentionally takes place on the same timeline as the Alien and Predator franchises. You have made the claim of it being a shared universe and so the onus is on you to supply the secondary sources. Don't refer to primary sources or what you personally think is obvious; refer to secondary sources. --bonadea contributions talk 15:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say it's redundant and unnecessary but take for instance "Let's get ready to rumble!" from Movie Magic #62 (January 2005), or Steven Horn's IGN article "Interview with AvP Director Paul Anderson", or Meredith Woerner's io9.Gizmodo.com article "The Third Aliens Vs. Predator Movie Would Have Served as a Prequel to Alien", or Brett Bruton's Fortress of Solitude article "Prometheus: The Complete Fire And Stone Review – The Prometheus, Aliens, AVP, Predator Crossover Event", or the Big Comic Page article "Joint Review – Prometheus: Fire and Stone #1 (of 4) (Dark Horse)". I don't know what else you want nor do I understand why articles such as these aren't sufficient. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The two reviews of Fire And Stone are not relevant (as they refer to the comics crossover, already discussed above). The gizmodo.com interview is here (it would have been courteous for you to actually supply links to those sources that exist online). I see no claim of a shared timeline in it, only a discussion of what a hypothetical movie in the AvP series would have contained. Once again, we cannot use sources to draw our own conclusions, claims (especially contested claims) have to be explicitly supported in secondary sources. Are there any sources that actually do support the claims? Anything that actually says explicitly that this is a shared universe? (Trying to track down the other two articles you mention, both of which are about AvP, is not something I am prepared to spend time on right now.) --bonadea contributions talk 16:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But Fire and Stone is a direct follow-up to the 2012 film Prometheus, and they wouldn't have a story spanning the Alien, Predator, Alien vs. Predator, and Prometheus brands unless there is a shared universe. It ought to be blatantly obvious. The Gizmodo article says it all in the title alone, they wouldn't be planning to tie AVP directly into Alien unless there is a shared universe. I would say I have provided more than enough sufficient evidence already, and asking for a source that specifically states "this is a shared universe" is unreasonable as the sources already provided clearly, explicitly, and unavoidably implies that there is a shared universe. - TurokSwe (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is obviously WP:SYNTH material -- the article creator has a fan theory that these movies are all in a shared universe. Maybe that theory has merit, but it is clear that it's a theory being constructed here and not a description of a theory that has been researched or written about outside of Wikipedia. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "fan theory" in the slightest bit, it's blatantly obvious through the cited material. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TurokSwe (talk · contribs) -- To clarify, are you saying that it is obvious from the films or is it obvious from the independent, third-party reliable sources that cover the films? If it's the former, then this is synthesis and a fan theory. It may be a well thought out and provable theory, but it can't be on Wikipedia if you don't have good sources. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it. Kill It With Fire. TurokSwe should post his fan theories that he thinks are "blatantly obvious" on his own web page or possibly (if they will put up with his behavior) at [ https://scifi.fandom.com ]. They don't belong here. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Ironically, he's already shared his theory with the blacklisted AvP Galaxy, which devolved into seventeen pages of him saying that they're wrong for seeing them as having three continuities and he doesn't get what their issues are for disagreeing - verbatim what's here. I'm sharing this because it feels like Wikipedia is being used as a giant soapbox for by editor. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 17:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DarthBotto (talk · contribs) - Agreed. It doesn't make sense to use Wikipedia for this. At most, he needs to find a wikia page and include it there. It isn't encyclopedic and it doesn't seem as if this editor understands why his work is here at AFD. He seems to think that proving the theory correct somehow makes it encyclopedic. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - aside from the valid reasons presented so far, the fact the title has to list the three franchises separately serves as strong evidence, in my opinion, that these are not one large franchise. On top of that, trying to unify the various media is an exorcise in futility because the various comics and video games are explicitly contradictory. Picking the comic you like best and ignoring the ones that don't fit is OR. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This fails WP:SYNTH, as noted by other editors.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is snowing here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure WP:OR. Worth noting that TurokSwe has been blocked. Fancruft is fine at a blog or wordpress page but not at WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 21:13, 21 October 2019 (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/Timeline_of_the_Alien,_Predator,_and_Alien_vs._Predator_universe&oldid=922403625"