Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 AD Universe

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 AD Universe

Firstly there is no such thing as a shared universe for all characters in the comic 2000ad - It's an anthology comic where links between comics are the exception rather than the rule. The major exceptions to this are the various spin offs of Judge Dredd, which could probably be the basis for a Judge Dredd Universe article, and those of Pat Mills, who liked to join his stories together and then roped in Judge Dredd as well. In addition there are a few stories which spin off from other stories (such as Strontium Dog spawning Durham Red), but that would be better dealt with by the main articles for the stories and a few one off crossovers. There is no overall 'shared universe' or 'shared timeline' and the various stories often completely contradict each other.

I don't believs this is correctable within the article and so the article should be deleted. I considered puttuing in a bunch of qualifiers but that would make the whole thing into an essay (which it leans towards anyway) and would at any rate would be contradicted by the title.

Secondly, and probably more importantly in wiki-terms, finding joins between these stories and trying to fit them together as a shared universe and a shared timeline consititute original research. Artw 16:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep There is a large central section to the timeline which is rock solid part of a shared universe (from Bill Savage to Hammerstein to Dredd and back to Hammerstein again, with various time travelling excursions stretching things forward and backwards in time) and other stories have interwoven with this (some have even been tweaked at a later date so that they fit better within the same shared Universe but that is a clear sign that there is such a thing as a 2000 AD Universe). As in the DC Universe and Marvel Universe entries there is a core timeline with other elements from parallel univserses which is a similar situation to the one we hav here. I'm unsure how to address the original research accusation - the information is in the stories so does reading the stories count as original research? I'd have thought it was more a rather important prerequisite. (Emperor 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC))
• Delete - this is original research. The introduction puts forward some suppositions about possible connections between stories and the timeline brings together disparate storylines and characters in an attempt to present them as connected. Yomangani^talk 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm unsure how it can count as original research - it references the stories the information comes from and is based on other published timelines. If the wording at the start is at fault then that can be addressed. (Emperor 22:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

The existence of the storylines and characters isn't original research, but the argument that they are connected (making up a single "universe") appears to be. If it isn't original research, then you need to cite reliable sources that have already presented this timeline, in order to support your argument. Yomangani^talk 22:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The original research would come from making the connections between all these separate series, not the timeline events. Individual stories are mentioned but I don't see any specific citations for these published timelines or stories where the fact that any particular number of strips are set in the same universe is established. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The work that's been going on on the 2000AD entries has been uniformly superb. However, I have to say I agree that this article seems to contradict original research guidelines. Despite a small handful of crossovers, most (all?) involving the comic's central character Judge Dredd, the idea of a shared 2000AD universe on the same lines as the Marvel Universe is certainly not widely accepted by the comic's editors or writers (which is why the title doesn't have wank like Infinite Crisis). Although many stories do have dates attached, there is no sense of continuity between events - so Scotland, for example, can be destroyed in Dredd, and be just fine for the later Strontium Dog. For all of which reason, I vote to delete. Vizjim 22:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Firstly, the article does not suggest that all of the stories in 2000 AD are connected, just a good proportion of them, and there are many more of these than just those involving Judge Dredd. It does not really advance the case for deletion very far to say that one writer, Pat Mills, was responsible for most of this, because his contribution to the comic has been massive, and the series which are connected to each other are all major ones. When you consider that Dredd, Strontium Dog, Flesh, Nemesis, ABC Warriors, Rogue Trooper, Harlem Heroes and Invasion/Savage are all explicitly linked to each other -- and I haven't even mentioned their respective spin-offs, like Durham Red or Anderson Psi -- this is just as valid a subject for an article (provided it is not original research) as the Marvel Universe, as long as this article makes it clear that it does not encompass every story in 2000 AD. (Of course, I agree that speculation about how stories might fit together should certainly be avoided, so the "Smithiverse" entry should be separated from the main part of the article and should have its own section at the bottom. Any other speculation needs to be either verified or removed.)

Secondly, this is only original research to the extent that the article speculates or hypothesises about how stories might fit together but where the evidence is thin or non-existent, eg. the paragraph about the "Smithiverse" -- anything which can be called "suppositions about possible connections". Things like this should of course be edited out. However, there are many crossover stories in which the characters from respective series have actually met each other, and I don't mean (for example) that Judge Dredd has met Judge Anderson. I mean that Dredd has met Rogue Trooper, the Harlem Heroes and Strontium Dog, for example, all of which were original series, not spin-offs from one source strip. So to describe this as "original research" is simply to deny objective and verifiable facts. Arguing that there is not a shared Universe because Scotland was destroyed in one story and then was OK in another story comes much much closer to constituting original research than merely pointing out that Dredd and Johnny Alpha have met each other twice. Using facts to propose a theory is original research, but merely collecting uncontroversial and indisputable facts in the same place for ease of reference is not -- and splitting everything into lots of separate article would just make it hard to follow.

To conclude: This article could use some further editing to address the issues raised by Artw, but I do not accept that the identified problems are not even correctable, and that the only possible solution is to delete and to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." No thought at all seems to have gone into how the article could be edited to resolve these points: just a knee-jerk reaction to delete at once. (I am not suggesting bad faith, just impetuousness.) I will have a go myself in a day or two (no time tonight).

• It needs to make completely clear, if it does not already (I think it does, IMHO), that the 2000 AD Universe does not include all stories, but that the quantity and significance / endurance of the stories it does include make the Universe notable enough to warrant an article.
• It needs to be confined to stories with clear and unambiguous links to each other. Where there are two universes with no clear connections between them, this should be made plain, and they should be under separate sub-headings to avoid confusion.
• The References section should (if it doesn't already, I haven't checked) list each story which explicitly ties one series to another.
• The article as a whole should distinguish which stories are spin-offs from another story (eg. Judge Anderson from Judge Dredd) and which stories began independently form each other and were later tied together (eg. Nemesis and Flesh).

Finally, I think that the intercompany crossovers section is worth keeping regardless.

Richard75 23:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

PS - if the article name is misleading or confusing then we could move the page. Richard75 23:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I suppose it depends on where the line is drawn on original research. If it is suggested that this could be the core of a Judge Dredd Universe entry then the main part sof this are deemed OK and the problem is with my clumsy introduction which attempted to put it in context (the mentions of the Smithiverse and Rogiverse are largely to say it is unclear how they fit in - not as an attempt to fit them in). However, a Judge Dredd Universe timeline would basically include much of what is already there due to a number of characters overlapping providing continuity over long stretches of time (Savage, Hammerstein, the Giant family, Dredd, etc.) and wouldn't be a Judge Dredd Universe timeline it would be a timeline covering the core of the 2000 AD Universe which brings us back to where we are. I do agree that a lot of this sounds like grounds for heavy edititng and clarification not for deletion and that is why I've been trying to get as much input on this as possible and it has imporved and I was confident it could have been improved further with further input. (Emperor 00:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

What you shouldn't be doing is advancing your own arguments, even if you are qualifying them with "probably" or "seems" etc. (that, in fact, makes it worse) or drawing your own conclusions from existing sources. I'm currently of the opinion it should be deleted because the timeline is an amalgam of different sources which purports to represent an established timeline referenced in the comic, but with no evidence that it is anything other than your interpretation; the first section consists of possibilities and references to other established universes which does nothing to advance the argument for the article; and the crossovers section is just that: a section on crossovers, rather than providing evidence of a 2000 AD Universe (although that probably comes closest to establishing a basis for the article's existence). I'm not saying it can't be saved, since I don't think notability is a problem here, but you'd essentially be starting a new article under a different title. Yomangani^talk 01:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep The early history of 2000ad was spent creating a universe dedicated to the characters--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case then the article should reflect that. AFAIK It isn't. Artw 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done some extensive editing. There is one ^{[citation needed]} which needs filling in (see the article's talk page) but apart from that, see what you think. Richard75 23:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The rewrite still doesn't address the central problem of verifying the existence of a 2000 AD Universe. Right now that argument is still original research. You need to provide a third party source that argues for the existence of the concept. I suggested to Emperor that this be rewritten from a crossover perceptive (as the comics themselves provide the sources in that case), and I still think that is the best idea. Yomangani^talk 14:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have taken this as evidence. Even though it only covers the central period of the timeline it shows the existence on one continuous timeline covering at least 4 different sets of stories (Invasion/Savage, ABC Warriors, Judge Dredd and Strontium Dog) not including the Helter Skelter event. There has also been at least one other longer timeline which has formed the basis of the current Origins story (hence the hat tip at the start of the story). The fact that there are some continuity errors is down to them retconning originally distinct stories into the main 2000 AD Universe (as with Strontium Dog appearances - as time travel technology is used it is clear they don't just don't exist in parallel universes but on the same timeline) - this is actually a sign they are now considered to exist in the same universe. I wouldn't 100% object to it being moved to 2000 AD Crossovers (or some such) but the fact is that some of the things there don't exist as crossovers but as the history of other stories (I'm thinking of Invasion/Savage which shows the first stages of the Volgan War and the ABC Warriors show the end of the war and then mainly through Hammerstein carry on through the Judge Dredd era to the far future and including Nemesis the Warlock. In some ways he is, as I say on his entry, some kind of Zelig-type figure who crops up in the major stories within the 2000 AD Universe from round about now to the far future (another source for that). I can't really see how that is original research - the story of Hammerstein is the story of the 2000 AD Universe - its all there on the pages to be read. (Emperor 15:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

I am aware of that timeline, and in fact have contributed to it. It is a Judge Dredd Universe timeline, with some of the Pat Mills stuff integrated in. It is not a timeline of the "2000ad Universe". It is also for the most part fan created rather than being in anyway "official". Artw 16:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is no answer to say that it is "fan created rather than being in anyway 'official'." The Wikipedia:No original research page says: "Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate". Whether you agree that the fans are right or wrong is outside the scope of Wikipedia's responsiblity, as long as it's verifiable. Secondary sources are actually preferable: "most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources". The external sources are enough to make this source-based research rather than original research.

Also I can not see any significant distinction between a "2000 AD universe" and a "Judge Dredd universe with non-Dredd stories integrated in" (to paraphrase). It's a secondary source which illustrates how some Dredd and non-Dredd stories relate to each other chronologically, and for the stories to appear in the same history/timeline then they have to exist in the same universe. As for the Dredd timeline only covering the middle part of the bigger 2000AD timeline, that is dealt with by the information on Hammerstein. In short, this article does not postulate some new and innovative theory that has never been described before, it just reports on an already existing idea discussed outside Wikipedia. Richard75 18:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Those articles only back up your ideas if, as you say, there is no difference between there being a "2000ad Universe" and "Judge Dredd universe with non-Dredd stories integrated in". I'd argue that theres a huge degree of difference there, and also that an article defining the term "2000ad universe" as "Judge Dredd universe with non-Dredd stories integrated in" would violate WP:NEO - check out the low number of GHits on the term. Conspicuously the current article doesn't stop there, and that's were the bulk of the OR comes in.

Also by citing fan created sources the article risks becoming an OR compendium of fancruft, which would be further reason to delete it. Artw 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So now citing sources constitutes original reserach? You're reaching now.Richard75 00:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely possible for an article to cite sources and be original research, if attempts to draw some OR point from those sources. Artw 01:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

But the entry doesn't say anymore than those sources - a number of 2000 AD stories exist on the same timeline (Invasion, ABC Warriors, Judge Dredd, Strontium Dog and Nemesis the Warlock) and a number of others have interacted with this core as parallel universes. That's not original research that is a fact - its all there in the comics. Also as you've suggested it could form a Judge Dredd Universe and Yomangani and Vizjim have suggested it might work better as "2000 AD Crossovers" (although I highlight problems with that above) it suggests to me the issue is with the wording and the focus (and possibly the title) which is an issue for debate rather than deletion. (Emperor 11:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC))

Possibly moving it to "2000 AD shared timeline" might solve the problem? That doesn't posit the existence of a universe per se, and seems supported by the sources. Yomangani^talk 12:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not unreasonable but some of the crossovers take place with parallel dimensions (thanks to the Dark Judges and their dimension jumping technology. I'm still unsure what is controversial about a number of 2000 AD stories occupying the same universe along a timeline which interacts with other stories in parallel universes. Its all there in the comics and isn't based on guesswork. Although there is a DC Universe and a Marvel Universe this doesn't imply all DC or Marvel stories share that universe - some exist on a general timeline (e.g., from say the Justice Society to the Legion of Superheroes), others interact with this core from parallel universes, some stories are completely separate and some others are of unknown relation to the main "spine" (although one suspects they might try and retcon some into it at some point). All of which exists in the 2000 AD Universe. It may be the article needs its focus shifting to emphasise this but in all this I haven't actually heard an arguement explaining why someone doesn't think such a thing actually exists. (Emperor 13:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC))

I actually wouldn't mind moving it to "2000 AD crossovers", because it's a broader title, and this would mean that the sections on intercompnay crossovers and John Smith stories would be more relevant. I don't think we can fairly say that Batman, Lobo, Aliens and Predator are part of a "2000 AD universe" because they are not 2000 AD stories, and we have already conceded that Smith's stories are not necessarily crossovers with the others. I doubt that it would be enough to satisfy Artw (unless we removed the timeline, which I am loathe to do and I do not believe is necessary), but it would help to build a consensus. Richard75 16:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Of all the moving/renaming solutions its crossovers that sounds the best one - my main concerns are that it doesn't really include Invasion/Savage (although one could suggest that the Volgans provide the crossover) and that a number of important events from the Judge Dredd part of the timeline would need removing (although again as so much is crossover material most of it can stay). If a better solution presents itself we can always move it again but as things stand that seems the best solution on the table at the moment. (Emperor 20:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC))

• Keep. I know nothing about these particular comics and I found the article through the AfD listing. It appears you folks are really into these, like others are into Marvel. Keep in mind that WP is for the masses, not for experts. The article seems to provide quite a bit of information for someone not familiar with the topic and per above it does rely on sources. If there is some debate about whether particular stories are part of the timeline, the appropriate thing to do is point that out in a section of the article, not delete the article.
  • I do suggest renaming the article. Judging from the name alone I thought it might have something to do with physics or history. RickReinckens 05:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Changing my vote in light of the arguments above to Keep and rename as 2000AD crossovers. Maybe a separate Judge Dredd timeline article as well? Vizjim 07:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've missed the main bulk of this disccussion but the article should be kept. In the early days of 2000AD the intention was always to have a shared universe for some of their stories. As has been pointed out, there's numerous examples of this throughout the comics histroy going right back to 1977. Logan1138 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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