Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowrun 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 keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shadowrun timeline

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

This history of the future is litterally unfinished, but also non-notable and just too in universe to be classed as anything other than original research based on original research.--Gavin Collins 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Speedy keep per below. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep It's not original research as there have been several time lines produced by Shadowrun's various publishers, from which the data on that page is culled. I'll add references to the page. EvilCouch 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not a history of the future, it's not fiction, and it's not original research. --UsaSatsui 23:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"Not fiction"? I'd better re-write my history essay. :-) Axl 11:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - The legitimate problem is that the article is written in too much of an in-universe style. (I'm surprised that it didn't get tagged as such when Gavin started adding templates to it.) At any rate, we should err on the side of keeping stuff if it's "borderline" rather than erring on the side of deleting it. Rray 00:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not original research (something that has been a point of contention with Gavin). This page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Fleet Universe timeline) gives a long debate on fictional world timeline articles.--Donovan Ravenhull 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is an interesting question. Take for instance The Shape of Things to Come, which is a work of fiction which contains a fictional time line. If I were to create an article entitled "Timeline of The Shape of Things to Come", and then to list all the dates and events in my own words, that would effectively be original research, a type usually refered to as a content fork. For without secondary sources, it cannot be proven timelines of fictional events are not original research. --Gavin Collins 11:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No, you misunderstand me. When I said that the information in the article was culled from the official timeline, I meant it literally. FASA produced and published actual timelines of key events in the Shadowrun canon. In fact, until I found and started editing the page, it was a verbatium copy of one of them. I could understand criticising the article for WP:COPYVIO, but OR isn't even on the map here. It cannot possibly be OR, because until about a year ago, it was a word for word copy of the primary source. EvilCouch 12:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So you are saying the article has been plagiarised? If so then is that not an admission that the article content is a type of original research refered to as synthesis? --Gavin Collins 07:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. You're still misunderstanding WP:OR, and I think you're confusing the text in the example in WP:SYN with the actual policy. Synthesis is taking sources and making a conclusion from them that is not made by any of the sources, while plagiarism is using material without crediting its source. Pinball22 12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Plagiarism is the exact opposite of original research. You need to come to a complete halt with AFDs until you actually understand the policies. At any rate, as I already stated, there has been about a year's worth of work done on the article since it was a plagiarised copy of official material. EvilCouch 10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's probably overly detailed, and could use more sourcing and a less in-universe style. But it's not original research. Your example shows that you don't understand what WP:OR says, since that would be a perfectly good use of primary sources according to the policy. It's not original research to state things that can be verified by anyone reading a primary source. It also has nothing to do with WP:POVFORK -- if you do just what you said, you haven't "forked" anything, just summarized an aspect of a work, and you haven't introduced a point of view anywhere. Pinball22 14:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Abandon this AFD and get someone else to relist it properly "Original research based on original research" wouldn't be original, now, would it? I don't think this article does meet WP's notability criteria, but I can't vote for the nomination. Percy Snoodle 14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per many above and timelines are encyclopedic and useful tools. Web Warlock 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is notable background to the game. Axl 11:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - as above. --Raistlin 13:35, 4 October 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.