Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverQuest timeline (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EverQuest timeline

EverQuest timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article appears to be a list of plot summaries in various fictional time.

Such lists are most likely to be gamecruft and are susceptible to original research.

Along with that, the article is not notable due to lack of real world references. Only EverQuest players would have any interest in this article.

Along with that, the sources seems inappropriately used and placed. Sources have to be cited within the article, which this one failed to do so with any of them. Also, there are no third-party references to establish notability. Finally, some of those sources do not even work, like the forum ones.

Judging by the edit history, not much effort is placed to fixing these problems and it is unlikely it will start.

It lacks real world acknowledgement outside of the EverQuest games and its players. IAmSasori 01:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —IAmSasori 01:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
• Delete No notability outside of fanbase. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this time line is writen from a heavy in universe perspective and there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the game. I don't understand why this article was not deleted after the first AfD; its clear this material is available on lots of other fansites, where it belongs. --Gavin Collins 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Precedent here shows that in-universe timelines sourced almost entirely from primary sources can be kept even (or especially) when there is disagreement about the notability. I realize the article has few listed sources now, but that can be rectified. Powers ^T 13:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; For every similar AFD that resulted in being kept, I can cite many more that resulted in delete, auch as the Dragon Ball AFD, the Command & Conquer AFD, the Ultima Universe AFD, etc. If there can be any consensus, it is that these type of timeline articles get deleted at AFD. Masaruemoto 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Everquest 132.205.99.122 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The timeline applies to all of the games in the EverQuest series, not just EverQuest. Powers ^T 22:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 06:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

the fact that unsourced, original research, and fancruft have not been addressed at all since the last AfD suggests that either they wont be improved or they can't be improved207.69.137.26 08:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me? The article is extensively sourced, albeit not in-line, and contains no original research. And "fancruft" is not usually considered a very good argument for deletion; unsupported by other arguments, it amounts to "I don't like it." If there is an argument to be made against this article, it's that it's lacking secondary sources to prove notability. Powers ^T 22:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the entire article is 'in universe' and I can scarecely imagine any way to make this article reflect real world notability . TheRedPenOfDoom 20:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The timeline of the (previous to World of Warcraft) world's most popular video game is entirely reasonable, assuming that EverQuest is already quite large (which it is). -Harmil 14:42, 12 November 2007 (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.