Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Sigilverse

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 — if you want a copy for merging, or transwiki'ng, just ask. --Haemo 23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of the Sigilverse

Timeline of the Sigilverse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:NOT#PLOT, as it provides no real world content. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this fictional timeline outside of the CrossGen comics canon. Gavin Collins 10:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 10:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom.Macktheknifeau 10:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:Plot and WP:WAF Ridernyc 10:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into the Sigilverse article. Timelines are useful for understanding long and intricate plots. --136.223.3.130 14:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge for me works, but in determining a consensus you can also colour me as favouring delete, both are solutions to the underlying issue with the article, which have been identified per above. Hiding Talk 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; At most the important dates could be covered in a "History" section of Sigilverse. Masaruemoto 21:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Sigilverse. The references are so thin this has all the hallmarks of original research. If it is merged it needs trimming down and more sources adding. (Emperor 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment There references are very poor and so this article not got primary sources that are verifiable. If this material were added to say a Good Article, it would imediately loose its good status. Merging would cause more damage than a deletion. --Gavin Collins 18:15, 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) 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Timelines are useful, and as long as references are included and real-world content is added, there is no reason this material couldn't be incorporated into the other article. Lack of sources and no real world content are reasons to improve articles, not delete them. Rray 02:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment These kind of pages do exist; Timeline of the Marvel Universe, Timeline of the DC Universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.12.118 (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • And that Marvel article is truly frightening in its lack of references - the DC one is a good contrast with the Marvel and Sigilverse ones as it does try and reference the sources for the information (although given the amount of material 70+ footnotes actually looks a bit thin). The Marvel one is a massive source of concern - it references one book, which raises the concern that it is infringing copyright. I think once this is done we need to take a long hard look at the Marvel one. (Emperor 15:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
    • This page might prove useful if more than one person was editing it (heh). It refs a few sources. Marvel one doesn't ref any really. And "provides no real world content"?? i doubt that this applies to a page about a fictional universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.12.118 (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No secondary source to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 22:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable fanfic compilation Mbisanz 23:16, 13 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.