Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowrun 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowrun timeline

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the issues raised in previous nominations still remain. The timeline doesn't have third-party sources to verify notability, most of the article is written with an in-universe perspective. The secondary sources referenced talk about Shadowrun games, no the timeline. By itself, the article does not meet the general notability guideline. I believe that the article doesn't meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists and it is an unnecessary content fork that fails the criteria of fiction-related subjects. It has no Real-world notability and what little it has referenced is better covered in the main article, if it isn't already covered there. Jfgslo (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite possibly, any Keep proponents will cite the same sources that existed in the 2007 AfD and claim they are "significant." After looking over the surviving ones, that is bullshit; they didn't describe the subject in significant detail then and they don't now. Two of the sources are one paragraph long. All are reviews of a videogame or another, but none talk about the timeline in much of any detail (let alone the "significant detail" the GNG requires), which is after all the article up for discussion. Beyond that, the nom correctly cites the Manual of Style, and unless proponents claim the MoS is no longer a valid guideline, there is no choice but to advocate deletion and merger. Ravenswing 07:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this likely doesn't meet the GNG by itself (though the sources are pretty close), but I believe spinout articles like this should be organized by what works best for the topic, not by what sub-topics happen to have 3rd party coverage. That leads to a real poor organization. As the parent topic (Shadowrun) is highly notable, this article is very reasonable. So keep or perhaps IAR keep because our policies and guidelines as written don't clearly support having an article like this, but they are wrong in this instance. Hobit (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also would note that the nom is stretching to use WP:FICT as a deletion reason when it's nothing more than someone's view of what a guideline should be. Also the sources in the article are actually pretty good though not clearly over the GNG bar. Hobit (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? Which of them discuss the Shadowrun timeline in detail? Ravenswing 06:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I generally consider it a bad sign when those in favor of keeping feel the need to blame the rules for not being good enough for the article. There is a reason why these rules have worked here for years. Here, we're not judging the rules but an article, so let's not do things in the wrong order.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is an enduring truism at AfD that the number of Keep proponents in these particular cases who wind up saying "Dern, you're right, I suppose the article doesn't pass policy/guideline muster are outnumbered tenfold by those who argue that because reliable sources are hard (if not impossible) to find for articles of their type - among other such - the provisions of WP:V/WP:RS are suspended in their favor. This curious notion is nowhere found in either policy or guideline. Ravenswing 16:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, per Jfgslo's reasoning. This is a plot-only article, with too much trivial elements and without a single secondary source (about the actual storyline). There is thus nothing that establishes the notability of the subject (ie the relevance of an article centered around the chronology).Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another WP:CONTENTFORK where we have two articles trying to spin the same sources in two different ways. This one is solely a plot summary. Keep the main article which has some coverage of the plot but also could cover other aspects of the series. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. No doubt there's a handful of sources about Shadowrun in general, but they establish the notability of a different article. Independent sources aren't writing essays about the timeline. It's just a tedious in-universe text drawn up from primary sources. bobrayner (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.