Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Stargate

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. Delete arguments (a plot summary in the form of a timeline, mostly based on original research) are stronger than the keep arguments.

Timeline of Stargate

Timeline of Stargate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article consists entirely of plot (

• Transwiki to an appropriate place, and delete. This is a huge and virtually unsourced list, and the article subject itself is not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article. Is there a stargate wiki? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned/implied in the nomination, I contacted an admin at wikia:Stargate about a full import-transwiki, but he basically said the material was not appropriate, and he hasn't got back to me in over two weeks, so I take that as general disinterest. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, should have read that a little better. Since you made an honest attempt to transwiki and there is no appropriate place to salvaging the content, then I think this can just be deleted. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A reasonable breakout of a highly notable series. Meets current (proposed) guideline for fiction. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would you handle the seemingly persistant and obvious problems with
    WP:OR (both policies)? – sgeureka ^t•c 08:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Because there is no OR and I treat the topic as a whole (Stargate) as one thing for purposes of "balance of plot". Given how long running this, that _is_ a concise summary. Hobit (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, the months are OR (I can't remember a single statement about a month in the series), meaning the separation by years is OR (at least for Nov/Dec/Jan/Feb), meaning the basis of the whole article is OR. The wording of WP:PLOT currently refers to "wikipedia articles" (which is how I use it), not topics, but I can let that go for the moment because its/the fineprint wording has been much discussed during the rewrite of WP:FICT, and will no doubt continue to be tweaked. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't want to see the whole article go, as I think there is some salvageable content there, but I'd just like to support sgeureka's statement that the months are completely OR - SG-1 fan myself and there's no way to tell the months in which the episodes take place, except a few which involved location shooting set on Earth. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided I think, generally, the article is well written, useful and informative, and I'd like to see it stay, but a large amount of it is blatant OR, and I can't see any way round that. It could be rewritten to remove the OR, but that would just involve removing large portions of the information. I'm not sure how useful the article would be without it (it's more than just the months - the years are mostly OR too - actual years are only mentioned a couple of times in the show, as far as I can remember. It's all based on the assumption that one season corresponds to one year, which is strongly supported by the evidence, but is clear OR.). If we can't have a useful article without the OR, then I guess deletion is the only option... It would be unfortunate, though. --Tango (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_{----informed the appropriate wiki project of this AfD. Hobit (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as clearly this article fails
  synthesis of primary source material. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

To be fair, a relative timeline does in fact exist. The characters say "last year" etc. quite a lot, and the story "builds" all the time, with a lot of references to previous fictional events. It is "January 1999" (or "1999" for that matter) that I object to, and this raises the question whether a timeline without giving the actual time makes sense (especially considering WP:NOT#PLOT). – sgeureka ^t•c 06:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, plot retelling.
  talk) 05:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • NOTE: AnteasterZot has been
    Tally-ho! 17:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep as it passes
  Tally-ho! 05:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As stated above, the timeline (as in, the timestamps) is in most parts not verifiable, not even with the show as primary source. Issues with notability (both of the article or Stargate) were not part of the deletion rationale. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles is being disingenuous, providing links to sources that are about the larger topics rather than the article in question.

talk) 07:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Have you read through every single source I linked to to see if they contain relevant information? Sincerely, --

Tally-ho! 16:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The burden of proof is on you. You say there are sources, we say there aren't - you're the one making the positive statement, so you're the one that has to prove it. --Tango (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on all of us to work together to find sources. Considering Starlog and all the other magazines, I doubt we can honestly say we have exhausted all source searches in just a week. Wikipedia does not have a deadline, and we should be given a lot of leeway for finding sources. Fangoria had a timeline for the Jason film, why not take some time helping us out looking through sci fi magazines for this? Best, --

Tally-ho! 17:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have tons of Stargate fan material at home (e.g. quite a few in-depth magazines and DVDs with audio commentaries for over a 100 episodes), and I have been following all producer interviews and blogs closely since approximately 2002. I am completely unaware of more than a handful of vague confirmation of the years, all of them from the show itself ("

2001" (season 5); what happened thousands and millions of years ago can be sourced with quotes from the show as well, but that already appears in the race articles). I believe I have fulfilled my burden of negative proof. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: It could be helpful to someone who starts watching the show in the middle of the series.
  Q0 (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This article can never contain anything but in-universe information and as such is a violation of
  Taemyr (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I think this article should be considered as part of the larger collection of Stargate articles for purposes of PLOT. While this article is entirely in-universe, it's just one small part of the larger collection, which does include plenty of out-of-universe info as well. --Tango (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a timeline is an augmenting and clarifying article and hence plot commentary as such should occur on a main article and not on this one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having perused the article, I find it's strictly a of
  =/\= | 21:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I love SG-1 as much as the next guy but this is largely original researched, poorly sourced, and unencylopedic. Time for this article to be transwikied away by the Asgard. - Dravecky (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research and too much details on fiction. If there is an SG-1 wiki with an appropriate license, transwiki it there. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2008 (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.