Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverQuest timeline (3rd 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 Delete; the problems with this article (unverifiability, lack of reliable, secondary sources and original research) would be enough to be fatal— coupled with the lack of attempts at salvaging it deletion is unavoidable. Norrath has been mentioned as a merge target, but there is no prose to merge and the article is little but a table of bullet points. — Coren ^(talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EverQuest timeline

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

Despite the previous nomination resulted in "No consensus" over two months ago, nearly no effort has been done to fix the issues upon this article.

The article still appears to be plot summaries of unnotable cruft with poor sources.

As a timeline, this article contains in-universe storylines, something which Wikipedia is not.

Such material is still unnotable to the real world and non-EverQuest players.

Containing cruft has a tendency to attracting original research, something not welcome in Wikipedia.

Finally, the sources on this article were very poorly done, with some of them not working, and still were not working even since the previous AfD over two months ago. Such sources do not even seem acceptable in the first place, ranging from game manuals to forums.

Despite the previous AfD, there has only been three edits total on this article, none of which attempted to improve the issues other than adding an in-universe template. It is apparently obvious that no effort will be done to fix the problems this article has. IAmSasori (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom's excellent analysis. Numerous policies are still broken, despite claims of the potential for improvement in previous AFDs. There has been plenty of time yet absolutely nothing has been done to address any of the concerns raised. There is no reason to allow this to remain on Wikipedia any longer. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like it's had its chance. The important parts are already covered in other articles, such as Norrath. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment So far, the only argument I see is WP:NOEFFORT. We'd better hurry and delete this, as 2 months is dangerously approaching the edit deadline...oh wait, no it isn't. Please argue the article's potential, not the article's current contents. -Verdatum (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  Did you read the nomination? It details the policies that are broken. The fact that they have been broken for so long in this case only goes to reinforce that the article shouldn't remain on Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  Sure did. Guidelines are broken in the content of the article. so the offending content should not remain on WP. This in itself doesn't mean the article shouldn't remain on WP. Now I made it a comment instead of voting keep because I haven't checked things out yet, I strongly suspect it should be deleted, just not using these arguments. -Verdatum (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  WP:NOT and WP:V are policies, not guidelines. I think the real point here (and why this article has been AFDed 3 times) is that under no circumstances will any amount of improvement bring the article up to policy, mainly because reliable secondary sources do not appear to exist to provide real-world analysis for the plot summary or to establish notability satisfactorily. In other words, there is inherently no content that could be included in this fictional timeline because the basis for content inclusion on Wikipedia is whether or not such content appears verifiable, reliable, independent sources. It simply doesn't appear such sources exist, so the article should be deleted. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  And that is a valid argument :) -Verdatum (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I didn't really say anything that wasn't already essentially in the nomimation. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as the article concenrs a recognizble subject, contains multiple references, is well-organized, and survived two AfDs already. Plus, as others have argued, Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete In universe (and unreferenced) content with no significant coverage from real world sources. Best if transwikied to an an EQ wiki. Corpx (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT this article does not show notability beyond Everquest universe, nor do I have any reason to believe notability exists. Further, the afforementioned appropriate parent article is not remotely large enough to justify a WP:SIZE split. Ideally, any worthwhile content should be merged there. I don't see any worthwhile content, so again, delete. -Verdatum (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see how this topic has any real-world notability. Nominator makes many other good points as well. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Since the game is a notable game in the real world, the summary of the overall sequence of events in a reasonably concise manner like here is notable as a part of the subject--an acceptable subarticle, written separately because of the size of the main article. DGG (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is not really improved since my first nomination, and all problems persist and seem likely to stay that way. Fram (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and merge with Norrath; between the two articles, one decent article should emerge. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Suggest merging whatever possible to the main article; this is pushing the boundaries of WP:CRUFT, and while the game may be notable, not every facet of it is. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:20, 9 February 2008 (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.