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. I would have preferred for this nomination to have been made in good faith but even discounting the nominator completely we have 5 sound arguments to delete vs. 2 keeps based solely on the status of the nominator. The consensus to "delete" is clear. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)

The topic of this article fails the general notability guideline due to a lack of secondary coverage in high quality sources. Furthermore, the article offers only plot only coverage of the subject, and there is no obvious role for any other coverage to play within it. Anthem 20:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC) - Please discount any comments by Anthem of Joy, he's a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per wikipedia fiction guidelines. Fictional articles should be more out-of-universe than in-universe, and have reliable sources discussing real life impact of THAT SPECIFIC TOPIC. I'm a huge Star Wars fan but I'll be the first to admit what in-universe year the Jedi Civil War started has NO real-life cultural impact. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: these timelines are generally deleted for being mainly WP:JUSTPLOT with a handful of sentences saying "this is a timeline from the fiction created by an author", followed by a plot recap in list form. They generally lack independent sources to WP:verify notability of the timeline as distinct from the main fictional article, and are usually a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main fictional work's plot summary with much more WP:UNDUE weight. In this particular case, sources that merely verify the years and dates in the fiction won't WP:verify notability or provide the "reception and significance" of this chronology as required under WP:NOT.

• As you can see from the AFDs in the collapsed list, keeping these timelines goes against both policy and consensus practice. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reminding me of one of my favorite AFDs ever, which also contains one of my favorite observations by a deletion nom ever ("a disproportionately large number of the entries seem to be about the Scrooge McDuck universe").

    But back on topic here, there might be something salvageable here even if one views this timeline's list of fictional events (the "timeline" section of the chronology) as indiscriminate and excessive plot (which, fair enough; gut that section). We have articles on all of the Star Wars films, dozens of books, comic books, video games... Which more or less fits into a larger fictional meta-narrative (compare Star Wars canon and Star Wars Expanded Universe); knowing that is integral to understanding the subject matter, particularly given that the second film trilogy is set before the first, and all of the non-film works take place before, after, or in between those films in very specific ways. If you look at List of Star Wars books or List of Star Wars comic books, both of those are already organized by the fictional "era" in which the works are set (see also Chronology of Star Wars#Film timeline; List of Star Wars video games is organized by game release date, however). So I wonder whether there is any possibility of combining all of that in this chronology without it being too cumbersome, so all works of a particular fictional time setting are not split by medium. That way, the lists by medium could also focus more on sortable columns for real world info. The list of books, for example, is woefully lacking publication dates. postdlf (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a chronology of releases, because you're right. That would have reliable sources too. There are sources that talk about the impact on the series of releasing three prequels decades after the original series and the impact that had on fan culture, moviemaking, ect. The real problem is there are no third party sources talking about the significance of what year darth sideous was born. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this massive plot dump (WP:NOT#PLOT), although I wouldn't mind seeing (parts of) the #Behind the scenes section appearing in Star Wars, Star Wars Expanded Universe or Star Wars canon per Postdlf as long as it is sourced (through dialog), which currently it isn't. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP and SPEEDY CLOSE, the nominator is a sock puppet and his nomination was in bad faith. Best to close the nomination and let it be reopened by a human being without bias later. Mathewignash (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - per mathewignash.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• if This is speedy closed I will nominate immediately after. So why not let this continue with all the good-faith editors contributing already? HominidMachinae (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [1]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This chronology is a plot-only description of a fictional work and does not seem to meet the general notability guideline as an individual subject. The article relies on primary and tertiary sources, but no secondary sources that make analytic or evaluative claims about the chronology and which for notability purposes are the ones that provide the most objective evidence of notability. The timeline itself is a non-concise plot summary of the various works presented in a non-encyclopedic format, using the fictional timeline rather than real chronology as a framework, so it is a redundant content fork. The article relies on original research by synthesis to generate the content, such as the estimated dates before the Battle of Yavin. Only the film timeline holds some value and that can easily be integrated in Star Wars or in Star Wars canon. Jfgslo (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: whatever the original nominator's intentions were for nominating, editors believe in good faith that this article fundamentally fails Wikipedia policies including WP:NOT and WP:N. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2011 (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.