Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen 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 no consensus. I do not understand much of the debate between Colonel Warden and Duggy 1138, particularly Duggy's statement "The 'secondary sources' are all primary sources for the assumed sources for the characters used." If he clarifies what he means by this statement, I may reconsider this close. The rest of the AfD is a disagreement over whether this counts as original research. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline

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

Mostly based on primary sources within primary sources (especially a fake comic within The Black Dosier) or the original sources for the characters (even though the comic makes clear that these are flawed in a number of cases) removing of these will leave mostly just a rehashing of the main comics; also full of speculation; plus comic book timelines aren't really encyclopedic Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article lists multiple secondary sources. The rest just seems to be a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. At worst, we'd just merge into The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and so deletion does not seem sensible or productive. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "secondary sources" are all primary sources for the assumed sources for the characters used.
- It was claimed that fixing this page was just a matter of editing 3 1/2 years ago. Didn't happen. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of your first sentence eludes me. Your second point is irrelevant as AFD is not a mechanism to goad editors into action. We are a volunteer project and have no deadline. Jesse Nevin's companion volumes seem to be good sources for this stuff and are secondary. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm not trying to goad anyone into action. I'm saying that it goes beyond editing. If it was just an editing issue then someone would have solved it in the last 3 1/2 years. It's not, it's deeper than that. The entire idea is unencyclopedic. No amount of editing will fix that. Jess Nevin's books are great, I contributed to them, so I know. But I'm not sure they can solve the problems with this page. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Secondary sources are only used (as far as I can determine) for the purposes of original research - just because something happened *that* way or at *that* time in the original works doesn't mean it does in the Moore work. It's simply primary sources and Original research. Shame really as it's a very good article otherwise (is there no Wiki it could be sent off to?). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can the article then be edited to remove the WP:OR you mention? And if so, would you? : ) - jc37 03:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I initially tried that. Eventually, I realised that if you remove all of the OR, you end up with a simple retelling of the "main story" in the comics. All of the background material isn't usable. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Warden. Deletion isn't called for in this instance.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^confer 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a request, not a requirement. The answer, of course, is per its rules and guidelines, which it sets forth.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic, non-notable, in-universe fancruft. Transwiki might be possible to somewhere like here. SnottyWong ^confer 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable book series and franchise that has a recent film based off of it. Useful information for those researching the collection for cultural studies purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codehydro (talk •contribs) 17:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As to the grounds on which I stake this position, I would ask that you please refer to my comprehensive evaluation of the article's sources and their inherent incompatibility with WP policies (WP:NOR and WP:VER) and style guidelines. That aside, for everyone's sake, let's not speak of the film adaptation. Ever. - Apo-kalypso (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article of this type will inevitably have a heavy reliance on primary sources as these are by far the most accurate. This is exactly the kind of pop culture article that Wikipedia does so well and to delete it would ultimately be to the detriment of this project. DLAwaster (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These are the kind of articles that wikis do well. In fact, online participation is how Jess's books started. However, wikipedia is an online encyclopedia not an pop culture wiki. Doing something well that it shouldn't be doing isn't what wikipedia is about. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primary sources are fine for a fictional subject. There is no reason to doubt it, since all facts about it come from that original source. And its a notable enough series to have a timeline article dedicated to it. Dream Focus 04:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRIMARY: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources". A timeline like this is a synthesis of the material, most of the entries are interpretive or explanatory, and the entire article is based on primary sources. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A timeline isn't necessarily interpretative. If the information is available, and this is just a collation of information. For example, if the work in question states that (hypothetically) event a happened on 19 August 2010, and also states that event b happened 3 days prior, it's not interpretive to state that event b happened on 16 August 2010. - jc37 19:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is interpretative, but pretty soft and you could get away with it... however "TNTA:3 p. 1. Apocrypha: Almanac Editors: This page contains what may be an error or obfuscation by Squiffy, or one of the other Editors of the Almanac, as it states that Nemo dies in May 1909, when the events of "Century: 1910" show he probably dies in April 1910." & "Halley's Comet would have been visible at night at about April 20 in 1910. All other dates of events taking place in London are judged by their connection to this approximate date" are OR. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:IINFO - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't have chronologies of fictional events and alternate histories simply because they are verifiable. In the end, this is pure and simple fancruft, of no encyclopaedic value, and of no real world importance. Claritas § 22:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, fictional information is of real world value. And this isn't "indiscriminate", at all. - jc37 23:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Fictional information can be of real world value. Doesn't mean this is. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia should not be used as platform for primary (original) research. If this timeline has not been published by a reliable, third party source, then making one up in Wikipedia as a proxy or a substitute is not the way to do. There are lots of other venues for such speculation such as Wikia, but the scope and content of this list falls outside the remit of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:26, 20 August 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.