Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logarithmic timeline of current events

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 keep.

Comment: Whoever formatted the discussion this way PLEASE DON'T DO IT AGAIN!!! These discussions are hard enough to figure out when you can match comment to counter-comment. This reduces us from logic, facts and policy to popularity-counting. Rossami (talk) 02:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Logarithmic timeline of current events

I don't get it. Neutrality^talk 02:12, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keeps

1. Strong keep Fucking brilliant idea, let's give it a chance to grow. Kudos to whoever came up with the idea. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Weak Keep, needs some further explanations on article for its value. I can see merit in the concept though but anyone who doesn't know anything about logarithmic timescales would be stumped. Megan1967 03:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. Keep I don't think "I don't get it" is a very good reason for deleting a page. If that's the case, I will just go a head and put vfd on half the pages on this site. ;-) Earl Andrew 04:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. Keep. People are maintaining it, and it's not doing any harm. It could certainly use an explanation about the time scale and the theory behind it though. Ливай | ☺ 10:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. Keep. Potential to be very useful tool -- monitor it for some months to see that it is maintained properly. Certainly explain background of the idea on the page. --mervyn 11:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. Weak keep. It somehow managed to exist since March 2004 and be edited by lots of people. It seems very interesting, but I still haven't fully decided whether it's encyclopedic. Vacuum c 02:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
7. Keep interesting variation on the "current events" page. Kappa 13:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
8. Keep Not sure how this one will pan out and how useful it will be, but I think it is worth taking the chance to nuture this idea. TigerShark 14:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
9. Keep What a good idea! I say keep and run with it. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
10. Keep. Fantastic idea. Thanks to Neutrality for giving it publicity. BTW apart from Neutrality not understanding it, what were the suggested grounds for deletion? Dan100 15:43, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
11. Keep This page is useful and puts an interesting slant on the way important issues fade over time. Some of the 'Delete' comments might better be taken as suggestions for improvement. Labour intensive? No matter as long as someone cares to do the work. And those who don't like the choice of events are free to comment on the talk page or, of course, just make some changes. Chris Jefferies 16:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
12. Keep Agree with many above that with a better explanation and choice of events this could be an enlightening approach to a timeline. At worst it's no worse than many of the lists of left handed Hungarian snooker players etc that exist and proliferate. Redlentil 16:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
13. Keep, really good idea. --Goobergunch|? 20:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
14. Keep, good idea. Bush Me Up 00:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
15. Strong keep. I don't understand the objections. If people disagree with the selection of events to include, anyone can add to or delete from the set of events linked to, so POV mistakes can be corrected. Arguments that this is not encyclopedic would have to apply to the entire Current events section of the wikipedia. Eric Forste 02:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
16. Keep. DJ Clayworth 05:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
17. Keep. As for "impossible to maintain", Maybe. Lets find out. Maybe archive periodically? Maybe construct these for key dates in history? (Great way to summarize longterm vs. proximate causes of a war.) This is a great idea. If it's somehow voted out of main space, let's at least put it in Wikipedia space and work out what we can do with the concept. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
18. Keep. Change to base e --SPUI 07:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
19. Keep. Oh, I get it. I'd say keep it, at worst its mostly harmless. -Ld | talk 21:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
20. Keep. Gives a different perspective. Only let it go if it dies from lack of interest/maintenance. Not encyclopedic? hmm... this ain't your grandpa's encyclopedia. Vsmith 23:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
21. Strong Keep. It's a really good idea, so let's give it a chance to grow. Scott Gall 22:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
22. Keep. Bryan 08:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
23. Keep. Give the idea a chance. Alfio 15:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
24. Keep. Think of it as a classification system for part of wikipedia, and it's supposed to be fine to have lots of those Philip 03:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
25. Keep. Ha! Do you people really think the delete votes would win?
26. Keep. Great idea for keeping perspective on current events / news. Properly used/maitained can help bridge the gap between those parts of Wikipedia and everything else. NB is there (or could there be) a way to put individual (event-related) articles onto a timeline using a {{timeline|1883|Krakatoa}} type approach? approach? Rd232 14:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
27. Keep. Great idea for putting events in perspective, and updated frequently. Andrew pmk 23:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletes

1. Delete, personal essay or original research (since the choice of events to be listed seems arbitrary). Does not illuminate the nature of time or the nature of current events. And is the page is very, very unlikely to be properly maintained. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Delete. Interesting idea, but doesn't work for me. And events listed do seem arbitrary as suggested.Sc147 02:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. Delete. Interesting, but doesn't quite belong here. LostCluster 02:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. delete, not encyclopaedic. And while the idea is nice, it's awfully labour-intensive. --fvw* 08:11, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
5. Delete. I like the idea, but not encyclopedic. MpegMan 09:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. Delete. The importance of the events on the timeline is subject to the author's personal point of view. While an interesting idea, this has no place on wikipedia. Phils 11:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
7. Delete. There are already timelines for all sorts of things and people can go through them in logarithmic progression if they want to. The selection of items listed is POV and it's original research if it's being suggested that there's anything significant in the events. Dbiv 17:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
8. Strong delete. Are these really the most important events of the last ten years or just cherrypicking the stories that were most heavily covered by one segment of the US media? As it stands now this list is heavily biased towards America and technology and I don't see any way of fixing it. Issues that may be terribly important to one group (SCO vs. IBM??) will always be considered insignificant to others. --LeeHunter 21:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
9. Delete, fascinating idea, impossible to maintain. Wyss 03:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
10. Delete. Original research, not encyclopedic, no evidence that this idea is used elsewhere and no real point. --G Rutter 11:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
11. Delete. This is pure POV. GRider\^talk 18:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
12. Delete. Somebody's personal idea of which events are important, would require repeated editing to keep current. RickK 00:05, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
13. Delete. Agree with many of the above statements and as proof of it not being updated I came across when there wasn't a change between the 8th of December 2004 and the 1st of January 2005. violet/riga (t) 12:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
14. Delete, as above. —Korath (Talk) 13:35, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abstentions

1. Abstain. Not necessarily original research. It's apparently based on an old theory by Heinz von Foerster [1]. --Viriditas | Talk 03:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Move to Wikipedia: namespace. Ropers 02:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. While an interesting idea, which I don't actually want deleted, this is the sort of thing that is only worth keeping if regularly updated. At the moment, I see gaps of more than a month in the editing history, suggesting that this has not been the case in the past, and since I am not volunteering to patrol it myself I'm unwilling to vote keep. Average Earthman 14:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. Abstain. I agree with Average Earthman with the addition that it would need more universal coverage than its current Western focus. Perhaps if more Wikipedians from outside the US could be convinced to contribute? Rvolz | Talk 19:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. Could be useful or at least interesting if properly maintained. Like Current events and the year articles, subject to unconscious bias on the part of the editors. -Sean Curtin 01:21, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't understand the reason for the logarithmic approach. Why chose that approach? What is it supposed to achieve that is different from a non-l timeline? Note that I'm not attacking this approach - I geuninely don't get what it is supposed to do. It would be helpful if the page made more of an effort to explain what it is for, though personally I doubt whether the selection of 'important' events can really be kept NPOV. Mattley 09:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Suggestion: How about creating separate pages for the most important events on a weekly, monthly and annual basis? O

[edit] Running Totals

Keeps - 27

Deletes - 14 (+ original request)

Abstentions - 4

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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.