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. A somewhat early close, but frankly this was doomed to end in no consensus as soon as the canvassing started. Protip to everyone for future reference: if you are looking for a different result than the last AfD, don't notify the same people! Once again, this is a crappy list filled with trivia and cruft that would much better be served to be integrated into another article, but (once again) that's an editorial decision. (Obligatory AfD is not cleanup goes here.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Chronology of Star Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Delete. Nominating again after the last discussion came to a dead end. This unencyclopedic article is nothing but the plot of a film series sourced from 100% primary sources (bar the occasional policy-failing fan forum). Due to its excessive reliance on the book Star Wars: The Essential Chronology, there are some copyright violation concerns and the reliance on the films themselves brings up WP:SYNTH issues. Original research issues are rife too and there are notability issues; the Star Wars series is notable, but is its chronology? Possible transwiki to a suitable home. Dale 18:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article relies excessively on the book Star Wars: The Essential Chronology, which is not a primary source, how can it be sourced from 100% primary sources?  --Lambiam 21:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the discussion last time, or a talk page comment, established that it was a primary source as it was funded, commissioned or authorised by Lucas (Google the cover - it uses the official logo). Dale 00:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where that was established. Do you have a diff? The fact that the logo was used does not mean that the book is not independent. I also think the notvote template is unnecessary - when you slap one of those at the top of the page before you even get any SPAs commenting it looks like a scare tactic, implying that many/most of the supports that follow are likely to be ILIKEITs. -- Vary | (Talk) 02:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on Amazon sees that the book mentioned is part of a series by a range of authors. All of the books bear the star wars logos, official photos etc. Lucasfilm would not allow a third-party group to make money off him in such a way. They're official. Bravedog (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that doesn't mean it's a primary source. It seems there was some disagreement in past AFDs over whether it qualifies as independent, judging by the most recent closing statement, but the authors of the book only summarized and recounted the information presented in the source material, which makes the book a secondary source whoever authorized it. -- Vary | (Talk) 15:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not having proper sources is a reason to FIX an article, not to delete it. Maybe that was included as the "cherry on top" of the other reasons, but it appears from the responses above to have derailed the other, more relevant, reasons. - BalthCat (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete I see nothing wrong with this article as it lists the timeline of the Star Wars universe. --Victory93 (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a valid reason to keep the article? Dale 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some sort of article that covers the fictional history of Star Wars should exist, but this isn't it, it needs to be rewritten. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included on the  and Star Wars page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
• Keep well referenced article, in the alternative, merge with Star Wars. Ikip (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are only primary references. How is that "well-referenced"? Bravedog (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source is the films, books etc. Encyclopedias and timelines about the films, books etc are secondary by definition. Whether they are or are not independant of the subject might be disputed, but they are undoubtedly secondary sources.The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination just tells us that the article has problems but 99% of our articles are less than perfect and it is our editing policy to improve them not delete them. I find no difficulty in adding an academic source which discusses the way in which the creators amend and maintain the official canon. Given the cultural importance of this work, we should clearly cover the topic well and deletion will not assist in this. The matter is notable and so should be preserved. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultural importance"? The films are culturally important, the timeline is not. Bravedog (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per great nomination. Excessive plot, non-notable, potential copyright violation - this article is a mess. No amount of editing will fix the first two policies I mentioned; I smell WP:ILIKEIT on this discussion. Bravedog (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fancrap listing of plot elements and events. No improvements since previous AFD. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 12:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and heavily trim into Star Wars there is a place for Wikipedia to explain the chronology of Star Wars; however, this article is not it. I also notice that the article for the franchise makes no mention of the temporal setting of the films. Here, we can solve two birds with one stone. We can merge a basic chronology into the Setting section, like "the films take place over approximately forty years in a dating system centered on the Battle of Yavin, the climatic battle of Episode IV; the prequel trilogy takes place 32, 22, and 19 years before the battle; and the sequels to A New Hope take place three and four years after the battle, respectively. Licensed "expanded universe" material take place between [100,000 BBY and 180 ABY] and focus on the discovery of the Force, the creation of the Sith and Jedi orders, and galactic politics". Sceptre ^(talk) 14:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this in universe plot summary content fork insuffienctly supported by reliable independent sourcs that might justify it standing on its own. Elements of this article are already covered in Wikipedia's voluminous articles on star wars.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep due to improvements since previous AfD and as it is inexcessive coverage of a notable topic backed by numerous reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't melodramatise the situation. This does not qualify for speedy deletion per WP:SPEEDY, nobody has mentioned personal preference (but for the record, I quite like Star Wars) and this diff shows that the article has barely changed since the previous AfD. Also, where are these "numerous reliable sources" you speak of? Dale 16:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It qualifies in the sense that no reason exists to red link (it is not a hoax, not libelous, not a copy vio, etc. and has a valid redirect location in the worst case scenario per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. As for sources, this one is covered in so many that all you have to do is just check Google Books and scores of magazines. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is not a hoax, not libelous, not a copy vio (subjective) does not mean that the article should be kept. Do you not agree that it fails WP:PLOT, WP:SYNTH and all the other policies mentioned in the lead? And without linking to these "Google Books sources", there is no way to prove they exist. You're gonna have to do the work. Dale 16:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not fail any of those as it is an appropriate spinout that puts countless other articles on the series into an organzied and coherent context, much like a table of contents. Anyway, a "Star Wars Timeline" is discussed here. And as for WP:PLOT, that is about one of the most disputed, consensus lacking guidelines we have as any rveiew of its talk page reveals. We cannot deny that the subject is notable and relevant and of interest to millions of people around the world and as indicated is certainly something addressed in various sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dale, here are the links you want to prove the google books sources exist link one, link two.--chaser (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A speedy close would be sensible as, per WP:DEL, "Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly." Also, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Colonel Warden (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD reached no consensus, so this is far from disruptive. We're just trying to gather consensus. Dale 16:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your biased canvassing indicates otherwise. Please see WP:HONEST. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Of the reasons provided by the nominator, only notability is grounds for outright deletion of this article. That said, the SW franchise is unquestionably notable, and a timeline is sensible considering the broad timeframe represented in the notable films, cartoons, games, and books. The solution here is not to delete, but to improve. (Laziness is also not an excuse to delete.) - BalthCat (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: See thread on talk page regarding votestacking. I think I've resolved the issue in this AFD by notifying everyone else.--chaser (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fictional works are supposed to receive a concise plot summary. This is far from concise. Considering that there are 59 unique articles about Star Wars characters, 14 articles about Star Wars locations, and 4 articles about conflicts in Star Wars, it is apparent that "concise" is the last word that could be used to describe the plot summary of Star Wars.—Kww(talk) 17:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as coordinator of WP:STARWARS. The topic of Star Wars is huge and sprawling, encompassing hundreds of works, including films, books, animated series', amusement park rides, and even that one thing we all want to forget. Having a short, concise plot summary is impossible. A chronology is one of the best ways I can think of to sort it all out, though I might like to set up some different formatting that would allow the option of organizing it by real-life date of the work it appeared in. The topic is notable, the events are verifiable, having appeared in primary sources and secondary sources about them (though some unsourced content could be trimmed), and OR is not a reason to delete. AFD is not cleanup. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For complicated series, articles like this are a practical necessity to keep things straight. They can best be seen as a navigational article. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominating an article repeatedly because you didn't get the results you wanted previously, is wrong. And how can a series be notable, and not its chronology? Does this page not meet requirements for a list? It aids in navigation, plenty of blue links. List of battles shows many list that list the battles from various time periods and nations. Many other articles exist that handle timelines of things. Can a timeline of major events not be notable, but all the events mentioned are? I don't think so. There is absolutely nothing gained by deleting a list, which many will find interesting, and useful in finding out information about something they care about, plus links to other articles. Dream Focus 18:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG and Dream Focus. The last discussion did not come to a dead end, it was an AFD that ended in no consensus. It's a helpful list to aid navigation and the arguments for deletion are not better now than they were 6 months ago. A chronology of notable events, basically a list of them, is as notable as the events it lists. The article serves (or can serve!) for a overview of when the events in different notable media are taking place within the fictional chronology, thus allowing the reader an easier overview of those events. WP:OR, WP:V or WP:SYNTH issues can be addressed through editing. On a side note, the canvassing mentioned by A Nobody on the talk page was completely unacceptable since it only notified those editors who have previously shared the nominator's viewpoint. Regards SoWhy 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's explore this logic for a bit. WP:NOT#PLOT calls for us to have concise plot summaries of fictional works. In the case of Star Wars, the plot summary has been overexpanded to the point that it consumes 77 articles, being cross-indexed by four categories. I can't see any justification for a 77 article plot summary. Why isn't the better approach to trim the plot summary down to the approximately 3000 words that the movies would justify, and remove the extraneous 77 articles and indexing aids?—Kww(talk) 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Star Wars is not only one or multiple films, it's a huge universe with many hundreds of books, comic books, audio and video sources etc. 77 articles might sound like much for a normal subject but in those cases where there are literally hundreds of different plots one cannot argue that it needs to be cut down to one article. Your argument requires that Star Wars only consists of the films which it simply doesn't. Regards SoWhy 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but my 77 count didn't include the individual novels, films, and comics. There are 20 sub-categories in Category:Star Wars. 16 articles sit directly in that category. There are 79 more articles in Category:Star Wars comics, 147 articles in Category:Star Wars books, and the list keeps going. In total, there are probably over 400 articles devoted to Star Wars, and the overwhelming majority focus on the plot of the various works. It's time to admit we have a problem, and to condense this area into a handful of well-written articles that are not dominated by plot details.—Kww(talk) 19:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 77 is nothing in this place as Wikipedia is not paper. If anything, it demonstrates that the problem is that we don't have enough articles on this huge topic. For comparison, let's look at what you've been working on lately - articles in Category:Beyoncé Knowles. There's more than 77 there — far more than my personal needs, which is somewhere between 0 and 1. Is this a problem too? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely it's a problem. It's an extremely rare single that should have its own article. Most should be contained in the parent album article. Were I dictator, approximately 90% of Beyoncé's articles would disappear. I haven't been successful in achieving consensus in regard to single articles. I was temporarily successful with Vanessa Hudgens, but editors kept recreating the single articles. Today, I just focus on making sure that each of the unnecessary articles doesn't overexpand with gossip and rumours.—Kww(talk) 20:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Chronology_of_Star_Wars_(2nd_nomination), only a new editor or someone unfamiliar with how AFDs are patrolled would canvass like this. Ikip (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - AfD is for cleanup, so I added an independant, reliable, non-trivial source.[1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This book looks like a good one, although there's no preview available. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep. There was not a consensus to delete last time round. What makes the nominator think that nominating it again just a few months down the line will change that? Renominating because the desired result was not achieved last time is not going to change anything. The article documents notable, verifiable events in a notable, verifiable series as happens for many other series on Wikipedia and makes for useful navigation through WP's coverage of the Star Wars series. The elements of it that are OR can be removed and other issues the nominator raises in his rationale can be resolved through normal editing but AfD is not the venue. Articles for Deletion is for deletion, not forcing cleanup, the clue is in the name. HJMitchell You rang? 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - maybe this is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote, but I just don't see how this meets our inclusion guidelines with regards to writing about fiction. It's entirely in-universe, composed from primary sources, with no real-world commentary, and of no interest to anyone but a fan. I know this is a 'word to avoid', and I'm sorry if it offends anyone, but... it's fancruft. I don't see what place it has in an encyclopaedia. Robofish (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its place is as a navigation tool- a very useful compilation of blue links that would aid anybody (fan or otherwise) in trying to locate a particualr article or piece of information on WP. Besides which, your comments about the style of writing are not grounds for deletion. HJMitchell You rang? 21:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• transwiki - this kind of in-universe material is precisely the sort of thing that belongs on a dedicated Star Wars wiki, not on Wikipedia. (As probably does much of the material on any given work of fiction here, but this is a clear low-hanging fruit.) John Darrow (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be transwikied now, just copy ans paste the edit history to the new talk page. Ikip (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I transwikied it, http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Chronology_of_Star_Wars&direction=prev&oldid=2824261 But within a couple of minutes it was merged to another article, but it exists on the history of starwars.wikia.com. Ikip (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ikip, DGG, and Fisher.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTAVOTE. If you don't have any thoughts of your own to contribute, don't post. --78.34.241.98 (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)— 78.34.241.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Weak keep largely per DGG, though my comments in the last AfD about the need for cleanup still stand and I'd be a lot happier about it with a better organizational style (this is a good start) and an attempt to limit it to "more notable" material - probably redlinked items should go. Disclaimer: when I logged in to comment on this I found that I was canvassed. Since I was coming here anyway and apparently switched sides since the last debate, I feel comfortable commenting anyway. BryanG (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per DGG, Dream Focus, So Why etc. I !voted keep on the previous AFD. No arguements have been made to change my mind.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per DGG and there is no real reason to delete. The subject is notable, as the Star Wars chronology is covered at least in part in many sources. If the other issues in the nomination are a concern, it would be better to clean them up than delete the article. Rlendog (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Although I have already "voted", I would like to bring the attention of everyone, particularly the nominator, to WP:STICK. HJMitchell You rang? 23:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Excellent way of organizing the vast Star Wars mythology, and our coverage of it. Having a good many articles on a subject like this is not a problem, organizing them well is the problem. This sort of article is the best kind of solution. The argument to delete rather than cover the subject thoroughly and organize that coverage well-- "Just make it go away! I can't deal with it all!"-- is truly unencyclopedic. Note that I use "unencyclopedic" differently than it is often used at Wikipedia. I use it not to mean something I personally don't want to see in an encyclopedia. I use it to mean, contrary to the building of an encyclopedia-- in this case one that does not have paper-bound limitations, and which includes popular culture as a subject area. Dekkappai (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The current article content is simply in-universe and as such unacceptable. But the page could indeed (as many "keepers" note) be very useful if someone transformed it to a chronological list of all Star Wars publications. I thus believe we should replace the entire content of the current article with a real-world chronology of Star Wars, i.e. a simple list with all publication dates of all Star Wars franchise publications. Please note that this necessarily means that as long as the current "article" is in place, I think the page should be deleted. --78.34.241.98 (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)— 78.34.241.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Everyme about this vote.--chaser (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is kept it needs to be seriously trimmed for in-universe and plot problems. Given the AfD history, I wouldn't really put any faith on this being possible; if that's the case then it can be surmised that the article's had enough chances. I would advise the closing admin to examine the arguments (and those making them) very carefully rather than head-counting it, given the familiar faces in the crowd. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I agree, that this article consists mainly of plot, it's main purpose certainly is not to just summarize plot. It is to give an extensive overview over the chronological order of the plots of the numerous Star Wars works. This can't be done without repeating a minimum of the according work's content. Listing the real-world release-dates of the work (as suggested above) also has nothing to do with it.There is a great number of articles about various Star Wars works on wikipedia, obviously they're created by a great variety of people, so they vary also by a great deal. This makes it often literally impossible to place the content of those articles properly in the Star Wars timeline. Not even speaking of arrange them in their appropriate order. And that's exactly what this article here does. And to classify the exact dates in the Star Wars timeline, I see no benefit of prohibiting consulting the primary scources. Bobby T. 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Bobby T. (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)— BobTGuevara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• keep per DGG and Ikip. There are third party books which discuss the chronology and its implications. See for example "Star Wars on Trial" edited by David Brin and Matthew Stover. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are enough reliable secondary sources on the history/chronology of the Star Wars universe to support this article, and Star Wars is a big enough cultural phenomenon to justify its existence. Works such as Star Wars, Wizard of Oz, Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes, etc that have major cultural impact are entitled to more coverage (including more in universe plot summary coverage) than other fictional topics, and they generally get the necessary secondary source coverage to support it. Furthermore as several others have noted the Star Wars chronology is complex enough to make this article useful.Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. That is all. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unless there is a policy agaist chronologies of fictional works, I see no convincing reason to delete this article. Sole Soul (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. Is it encyclopedic at the moment? Probably not as stands. Does it have the potential to be reasonably useful as a navigational aid? Maybe. Yes, the article probably has rather too many trivial items, which harm the ease of use as for navigation, and too many redlinks for articles that shouldn't be created (like all the years for instance), but it's not all that bad. Quantpole (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've spent the last hour or two trying to trim this thing down, see sandbox here. Through approximately the arbitrary section break there, I've purged about 18 KB of redlinked and low-notability material to make what's hopefully a slightly more useful timeline/navigational aid. I'm probably being too generous in some areas still but at least it's an improvement. Unfortunately I'll be out of town starting tomorrow and so won't be able to finish this by the time this AfD's scheduled to close, but if anyone else wants to play around with it they're more than welcome to. BryanG (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. It pulls together a variety of information into a clear, chronological, and useful article. If 90% of the stuff came from primary sources, that would seem appropriate in this case. Anything else is much less likely to be accurate. We're not talking about relying upon a person's potentially failing memory or delusions of grandeur, but static reference material that is the most accurate source of all. In this case, primary sources are really the best. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• . Seriously? You think the fifth time is a charm? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Keep per Willscrlt. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2009 (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.