Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logarithmic timeline of current events 2

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rhobite 06:31, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Logarithmic timeline of current events

For the prior VFD discussion of this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Logarithmic timeline of current events.

I put this up before and the article is kept, but I feel the decision should be reconsidered. The timeline is pure POV; while it's a fascinating idea, I feel any selection of the "the most important events in the last ten years" is inappropriate because it requires a judgment on what the "most important events" are. Perhaps for Wikinews. Neutrality^talk 16:36, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neutrality^talk 16:39, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NPOV violation, no matter how interesting it is. Phils 17:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• While this is the coolest concept for an article I've seen in a while, I'm afraid it isn't very encyclopedic. Delete. Radiant! 18:16, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No clear criterion for inclusion. Inherently violates NPOV, since an event about which there is a dispute as to its importance can't be both on the list and not on it; so inevitably one POV gets to win, and the other gets to lose. --BM 20:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or move to wikinews. Also abolish "deletionism" as inherently POV (see BM's argument above). Kappa 02:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletionism is a wikiphilosophy, and therefore needn't be NPOV. A selection of "the most important events in the last ten years" is a POV selection of events, and therefore isn't a NPOV encylopedia article. Neutrality^talk 22:13, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • The wikiphilosophy of deletionism results in a wikipedia that is POV, in violation of one of its founding principles. Kappa 21:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. By BM's logic, this VfD is also inherently POV because one side gets to win and others lose. I see no reason to reconsider last months voting. jni 09:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • VfD is not an encyclopeda article. Radiant! 13:12, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously, the point of VfD is to determine which POV concerning the retention/deletion/etc of an articles represents the consensus of the editors. The contributions and the outcome are inherently a POV. That is why it is in the Wikipedia namespace and not in the article namespace. --BM 19:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. We already have Logarithmic timeline to explain the concept and provide an example (albeit it spans a much longer period of time). I see no reason this should be kept here, since any relevant info can be found in Logarithmic timeline; we're not losing anything. Logarithmic timeline of current events is just one POV example of such a timeline. Phils 10:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly transwiki, for reasons already given. -Sean Curtin 00:44, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• In the prior discussion, several "Keep" voters wanted to see how the page would "pan out" (seemingly unaware that it had already been "panning out", rather badly, for 10 months), opined that "people are maintaining it", and called for better explanations of the idea (seemingly unaware of the existence of logarithmic timeline that does exactly that). As Phils points out, we already have the encyclopaedia article. This article, by contrast, is no more than an example of the idea. And it is an example whose edit history speaks for itself. In the month between the VFD discussion closure and the renomination, the page saw exactly four edits. And it really hadn't been maintained very effectively before that. Moreover, the article still states that the election in Iraq took place "last week". Yes, this is an intriguing idea, especially if it were done well (which it hasn't been, and, if the past 11 months are anything to go by, probably won't be — especially given that Wikipedia is not a news service). Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia. Wiktionary is the dictionary. And Wikinews is the newspaper. This idea would be an very interesting one to try out as an alternative means of presenting the Wikinews digests of past news reports. That is where something like this belongs — in the newspaper's "archive room". I suspect that Wikinews would be grateful for the concept, not for the article, so rather than Wikinews I vote Delete. Uncle G 18:27, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly maintained and POV version of a concept already covered. --G Rutter 22:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with UncleG in all points. It would be pretty cool in WikiNews. vlad_mv 02:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki. Inherently-and-permanently unstable pages do not belong in the main namespace. If nothing at all happened in the world for a month, no other pages would need updating (improving and correcting, but not updating); but this page would need changing just to keep the relative dates current. Joestynes 09:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.