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. postdlf (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek stories by in-universe chronology[edit]

List of Star Trek stories by in-universe chronology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Appears to be an article that was created or expanded while ignoring the consensus at this AFD. This list is the original research of Wikipedia editors based on their interpretation of the fiction. Also violates WP:NOT#PLOT which requires that we discuss the reception and significance of something in reliable sources, instead of merely having fans retell the story (no matter how original the presentation might be). This type of list belongs at Memory Alpha and not Wikipedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Might be a WP:COPYVIO. See this website: [1] ... at best, it's still sourced to unreliable material and entirely original research. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fanboy over-enthusiasm run amok, a WP:OR in-universe reorganizing and rehash. Send it off to the Trekkie Wiki if they have any use for it. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - interesting, but it's a purely in universe TV Guide, not an encyclopedia entry. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' or Transwiki somewhere. Pretty obvious. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Memory Alpha and link to it there. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Delete - I could see keeping this article if it was only an attempt to organize the existing Wikipedia articles. A pure mechanical ordering is not original research and this list seems similar to other lists in Category:Star Trek episode lists. I did not put this down as a keep yet as the article also seems to be an attempt to organize articles on Memory Alpha. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I should add that those "unoriginal" organizational lists already exist. See Category:Star Trek episode lists. Those other lists conform with policy and IMO will be mainstays of the encyclopedia. This specific list is more problematic for reasons I stated in the nomination. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list I had inspected earlier was List of Star Trek: Enterprise story arcs which seems to suffer the same problems as List of Star Trek stories by in-universe chronology which this AFD is about. I was tired and did not look at the other lists assuming all of them were similar to these two. In checking now, the remaining lists are of episodes for various Star Trek series where the lists themselves have also been well documented meaning they are notable and available from reliable sources. I was wrong on the "mechanical ordering" as apparently some of the dates used were invented just for this list. For example, the list has All Our Yesterdays at c. 2700 BC but that date is not mentioned in the article and is apparently an invention by the Memory Alpha editors.

In looking at it again, I also don't see any value to the list the way it's presented. Various Star Trek incidents or episodes involved time travel to the past. There's nothing to be gained by identifying those incidents/episodes and then sorting the results into a chronology, particularly as Category:Star Trek time travel episodes already exists. With these items in mind, I changed my comment to a delete. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As stated in the nomination, the article appears to be original research and a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world notability and I also do not think that the article meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article may be material appropriate for a fansite, but not for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am interested in hearing exactly why you believe this is OR; most Star Trek for episodes begin with an overt listing of the date. COPYVIO and OR both? I question the credibility of the author of such a statement, when the obvious thing to say would be that here is a source, but there may be COPYVIO problems to remediate. On closer examination, there appears to be no COPYVIO either... Anarchangel (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The best source for this information, bar none, is Memory Alpha - a fantastic site for anyone who's every wanted to look something up about the series. Memory Beta, for the non-canon works, is equally good. Neither is a usable source for this Wikipedia, however. The OR concern is troubling, as well - we can make pretty good guesses on some dates, sometimes with a high level of accuracy, but unless it's formally stated somewhere, it's speculation. I doubt very much that this trips over COPYVIO. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:44, 11 April 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.