Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece timeline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, reasons for keeping are not based on policy or guidelines. --Coredesat 04:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece timeline

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

Giant in-universe plot summary. Violates WP:NOT#PLOT. No reliable, verifiable sources to assert its notability. Delete or merge into One Piece. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: its actually a page in need of attention rather then deletation. There is no One Piece wikipedia project set up to organise pages. An attempt was made but dropped due to several reasons. And refs are easily added, if source is the problem, there are sources and refs on the page, and more can EASILY be added. And not much of this is actually plot line, its infomation from a series. Such timelines have been found on pages such as War of the Worlds, which has a timeline (or did have when this was created) on one of its connecting pages. I leave one further comment on the matter: Which is better for wikipedia Deletation of imperfect page or Improvement of an imperfect?

Sometimes... People jump in and are too keen to delete stuff on wikipedia. Angel Emfrbl 16:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - You still have not refuted the fact that this article is nothing other than a plot summary, which violates WP:NOT#PLOT. It's irrelevant how much sources you add. It does not matter unless you can establish notability through using out-of-universe sources. As for the War of the Worlds timeline, read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Trying to appeal using the inclusionist/deletionist argument will not help either. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Okay, you need to stop using overusing policy and guideline shortcuts. Every statement/reason you have made has been explained with a shortcut, and most opposing your view have been opposed with shortcuts. Rather than saying "it should be deleted because it is a plot summary which violates a policy", you should actually support your reasoning by explaining why a "plot summary" is not acceptable. Instead of saying "how many sources you have doesn't matter since they aren't out-of-universe, which is against this policy", you can explain why out-of-universe sources matter. Rebutting all of the points opposing your view with policies and guidelines is against WP:BASH. --Superneoking 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - WP:BASH is an essay, and is not binding. In any case, the rather obvious point is that directly citing policy is relevant because it is the same as a lawyer citing laws to support his case. This article is a clear violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, as it is entirely plot summary and nothing else. That is policy; ergo, it is followed. The importance of out-of-universe sources is to establish the articles in a real-world context, which is required of all Wikipedia articles, as it makes them encyclopedic and not a mere fansite. In its present state, that is what this article is. It makes absolutely no sense to a non-fan of the series and is completely in-universe. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Policies are made to be used in discussions. The whole reason for having AfD is to delete articles that violate our policies. AfD isn't "I dont like this lets delete it." AfD is "This article violates this policy so lets delete it." --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I also agree that it should be kept. I prefer improvment over deletion, but that is just me. Many articles used to be crap, but with hard work, quite a few ended up becoming Featured and Good articles. If you had given up on those articles when they were at their worst, then we wouldn't have them at their best today. The timeline page certainly does need to be improved, but that can't happen if it is gone. As for sources, if you find the actual chapters to be unreliable, then I can't imagine what a good source would be.

And Malevious, if you are going to participate in this debate, please be serious. I respect Sephiroth BCR's opinion because he has clearly stated why he thinks it should be either deleted or merged. You on the other hand sound like you based your decision solely on the desire to delete an article. Please actually take the time to explain why you feel it needs to be deleted. --Superneoking 20:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • No, my opinion is based on the 200 other plot summaries and timelines deleted because they are nothing but plot summaries. See WP:PLOT. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: So why do you think this article needs to be deleted? Your decision shouldn't be based off of the fate of other articles. Should we delete all timelines and plot summaries because 200 other articles were deleted? If that is why you think it needs to be deleted, then you need to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Superneoking 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Pretty much that's the way it is, yes. I'm sure this one in particular was singled out at this time because of other One Piece-related AfDs currently in-process. I'm ambivalent about the plot article issue in general. Its one of Wikipedia's MANY deeply stupid rules, but really, a plot ought to be summarized in the main article - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Sections] in the Anime Project page, which is NOT so stupid. Snarfies 21:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I find this reply to be hypocritical, largely because you retorted to me using WP:BASH, and yet you contradict yourself here by solely using policy to construct an argument. In any case, you still have not refuted WP:NOT#PLOT. This article is entirely plot summary. It has no real-world context or available sources to establish an out-of-universe voice. Other plot summaries that were far better than this article were deleted for the same reason. Go figure. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Part of the appeal of One Piece is the history behind the events, and the details of it that are slowly emerging. I wonder if the article could be justified by the addition of a sourced section discussing what the back history adds to it? Find some reviews or articles talking about One Piece that specifically discuss that aspect of it. That might help shore it up into something that isn't pure plot summary. Of course, you'd actually have to find those sources... Doceirias 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: well if you remove the 22 years section to present, then you have no story plot left. The other stuff, aside from one or two things, are not plot points but just information supplied by the storyline. Most of it has nothing to do with current storyline. If you really want to crib over plot points... Remove the "Oz" bit, births of characters, Norland's bit + skypiea and every from 22 years ago to present. What you'll have left is not plot point. Angel Emfrbl 12:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Er, no, it's all technically plot no matter how much of it there is. My point was that you have to add out of universe references to justify keeping the timeline at all. I thought that might be easier to do with a timeline than a straightforwards plot summary. Basically, adding references and a sourced section discussing the importance of backstory to the series might salvage the article, but at the moment there's no reason not to delete it. Doceirias 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sourced out of universe information and just plot details. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete. I agree that sourced information and real-world context needs to be added; however, I have a slightly more liberal interpretation of what sources and real-world context are acceptable in a case like this. Have any professional manga/anime magazines discussed the backstory or timeline of One Piece? Is there an officially published chronology, like the Star Trek Chronology? Any sources like that might be sufficient to change my !vote to "keep". If it's been covered in reliable sources outside of the fiction itself, that's good enough for me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No secondary sources, no real world context. Jay32183 05:15, 11 August 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.