Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowrun 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 keep. Prodego ^talk 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shadowrun timeline

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

The article provides no real world content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the role playing game from which it is derived. Gavin Collins 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The redlink/bluelink ratio alone is enough to warrant such a decision. A short synopsis could be added to the article Shadowrun. Shadowrun fans, if you are reading this, please give my suggestion some consideration... --Blanchardb 22:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Consists only of plot recap with no sources for real world context. Jay32183 00:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a notable campaign setting and roleplaying game, and within that context a chronology is appropriate... however, it's not necessarily appropriate for the main article, so sectioning it off to its own page is entirely reasonable. -Harmil 05:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Merely a collection of events with no real-world context or significance. Doubtful reliable secondary sources exist to establish notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 06:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - If it has no significance, then why does virtually every review and preview of Shadowrun (2007 video game) complain that it takes place outside of this timeline? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] The timeline aggregates events depicted in the Shadowrun universe over the course of over a hundred sourcebooks and novels. Sure, articles could be created about each book and the portions of the timeline that are pertinent to that particular book should constrained to just that book, but this article is vastly simpler to create and easier to maintain. EvilCouch 23:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability isn't the actual issue. The article is only plot and is not a collection of plot summaries. Jay32183 03:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Shadowrun is one of the more famous SciFi RPG settings, and having a good timeline of it's history is a useful resource. While it could be shortened to some brief synopsis, much of the usefulness of the timeline would be lost. Notability of the overall setting is pretty high in the RP world, and the game revolves around a lot of precise events from the universes past. Drakino 23:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep EvilCouch's links show significant coverage in independant sources. Edward321 02:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per EvilCouch's reasoningShemeska 14:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:Plot WP:WAF and WP:N. Ridernyc 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Now passes WP:N because of secondary sources referenced[7]. Now passes WP:Plot because of developmental history of the timeline.[8] It could certainly use needs more work, expanding of the development and needs refs. I'll be able to include some once I get home and have access to my books. EvilCouch 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Does not pass WP:N, those sources don't have significant coverage. The development section is completely unsourced. Providing sources and adding a tag for expansion would be acceptable, but adding unsourced content to claim the article isn't entirely plot is not. Jay32183 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • adding two sentences to an article of this size is far from presenting real world context. It's a plot summary, one giant plot summary. Nothing is going to change that. Ridernyc 06:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Wow you cut and pasted a section from the main shadow run article. Wow. Ridernyc 06:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I added significantly more than two sentences and nothing was copied and pasted. Feel free to continue to violate WP:CIV if you wish, though. EvilCouch 11:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Not one of those sources provides significant coverage of real world context for the Shadowrun timeline. No matter how much work you do, that won't change. Fixing this article isn't a matter of Wikipedians putting in effort. We have to wait for outside relaible sources to publish information and we have no indication that it will happen. Jay32183 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is, in fact, a substantial amount of literature on Shadowrun. Yes, lots of it is within FASA/Shadowrun itself and thus arguably is too much a primary source, but the sheer number of books they put out implies that some people are paying attention. Arguing that Shadowrun books don't count about Shadowrun is akin to complaining that all the sources in an article on WWII are about WWII. As noted at the somewhat similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonlance timeline, I think that unified articles like this are probably considerably more notable than the somewhat pulpy novels associated with such settings, and serve as a useful appendix to the general plot thrust of the setting. That said, redlinks to fictional corporations and the like that will surely never merit articles should probably be removed. SnowFire 04:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No one has denied that Shadowrun is notable. There aren't sources on the Shadowrun timeline other than plot. Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Jay32183 19:51, 8 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) 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The nominator put this same article up on 1 October 2007 (see above for the first nomination link) which resulted in a keep. This borders on a non-good faith nomination.--Donovan Ravenhull 15:02, 10 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.