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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future timeline[edit]

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)).

Back to the Future timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Original research. It's essentially an essay that would make a cool blog post or whatever, but doesn't belong here. The separate timelines that form the basis of the article are entirely a supposition of the author. Dtcdthingy 17:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree that it's a pretty cool article and very interesting, but not really suitable for Wikipedia since it completely violates WP:OR and WP:V. There are no sources or references at all, and I doubt they can even be provided. I also found http://bttf.xylot.net/index.php so this article might even be WP:COPYVIO. Jayden54 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The dates are properly sourced from the movies/other official sources, but categorising them into the different timelines as shown is non-trivial original research in my opinion, as shown by the discussion on the talk page. So delete, despite the fact that WP:ILIKEIT. Demiurge 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree; it's just an explanation of the plot, much like many other movie entries contain. JoshuaSchachter 17:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete as original research but it is rather cool. The article has been around for a while though and it is almost a shame to see it go. I'd say transwiki this somewhere if I could think of a good target.--Isotope23 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think it's original research more than a lot of other articles, and the dates can be sourced straight out of the movie. I also don't think it's so terribly novel that it can be characterized as "mere supposition" Jkatzen 17:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a work of art! Danguyf 18:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Clean Up - there is no one author of this, and the writers of the film have specifically covered most of this material in commentaries, interviews and a Q&A they did for a fan magazine (the Q&A is online)[1]. On top of this, there's the old problem that anything that can be derived from simply reporting what happens in a book or film (e.g. Marty buys Gray's Sports Almanac in 2015) results in someone charging "original research". Yes, it needs to be sourced, with citations from the two Bobs (Zemeckis and Gale) and possibly one or two Starlog articles that were written years ago (and which Zemeckis and Gale talk about in one of the commentaries). I personally would be more than willing to help with this, but I've been busy recently trying to put out similar fires elsewhere, including cites for the main Back to the Future article. Karen | Talk | contribs 18:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is the sort of thing that is absolutely fascinating and would never make it into a traditional encyclopedia. Bbrown 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is well executed and shows the collaboration of many wikipedians.--Effoveks 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's just great, and isn't truly original research any more than any other article that summarizes a movie plot or pulls from three different sources to come up with "unique" information.--Pwinn 19:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: This is just what I needed to help with my paper on time travel in movies.! --pog 20:14 1 DEcember 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Not OR, but simple note of the story. Wiki-newbie 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is no more original research than any other plot summary. It would make a great research aid for anyone studying complex plots devices, time travel, etc..--IndigoSkye, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Just because something is unref'd, doesn't make it original research. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Other than the movies themselves (which describing and summarizing the events therein is no more original research than describing and summarizing the content of any other work), much of this content has been discussed in several sources related to the movie. Many of these sources cannot be found online as they are copyrighted video and audio commentary, and if I'm not mistaken, some is found in some books and magazines which are now out of print. All that said, what IS the Wikipedia standard and format for referencing sources which cannot be found online in any reputable place? LaMenta3 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The timeline is incredibly useful and interesting to any fan of Back to the Future. Articles like this are part of what makes Wikipedia unique and wonderful. wonko 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not an essential or important topic, but it's not OR and since it's all based on the movies, verification isn't really much of an issue (since, well, we know what the 'references' are from the title). Sometimes a fun trivial article is fine, leave it alone. -Markeer 21:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I like this; I in fact think it's bloody brilliant. I want this to belong on Wikipedia. I want it to be here. I don't want it deleted. If Wikipedia was a different place, that would be entirely permissible. However, it's not supposed to be here, and I can't just vote keep because I like the article. I really hope everyone who worked so hard on the article find a new home for it and get the applause they deserve. — Whedonette (ping) 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article just made del.icio.us/popular, so we should probably tag this AfD with the usual disclaimer. This doesn't appear to be copyvio--it predates bttf.xylot.net & the page history does demonstrate that it was gradually built up. If I'm mistaken, it should be speedied anyway. While some edits have had OR, this article isn't inherently OR--the references are the movies. We have a lot of plot summaries on here & I don't see how this is different. --Karnesky 21:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not original research. All of this stuff is in the movies. Changing the method of presentation != original research. --- RockMFR 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If this page is deleted then half the pages on wikipedia about movies, comics, and TV shows would also have to be deleted. It's a fine page for an encyclopedia; the movies are very popular and deal with a popular subject (time travel) in a well thought out way. Mattgrommes 22:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Clean up - The article should be limited to the main events of each timeline, not dwell on minute details. Wikipedia is not a collection of interesting trivia (which is what a lot of these details are), and they are a source of OR (for instance, the date the female president was elected). I mentioned this a while ago on the talk page, but got no replies. -- Ritchy 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It would be criminal to delete this cool, interesting article. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep — This article is documented and supported by the three films, commentaries and supplemental information included with the DVDs. Val42 23:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep — N:OR is not a legitimate complaint against this article, which should not be considered research in the first place as it does not discover new information or advance a theoretical claim. It is simply an extremely detailed plot summary and explication of the movies' internal logical structure. N:V is not a legitimate complaint either, as the entry can be verified against the movies.
• Keep. It certainly needs clean up but the article is very interesting and based on the films. Nat91 23:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — It's an extremely thorough synopsis of the timelines of the three movies, and fascinating reading to boot. Jenigrant 06:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, very interesting article. Peter S. 11:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's cool, interesting, and provides background. Does need cleanup, though. --Chetfarmer 19:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Watching a movie with a notebook in your hand isn't OR. --cosh 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It made http://www.usemycomputer.com !!!!!one!! (but then Dtcdthingy knew that). - Dudesleeper 23:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Interesting and creative presentations of existing information don't count as OR. This should be featured, not deleted.--Thetourist 06:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not original research, it's a detailed plot description of an entire very popular franchise. Same would go for Star Wars or Star Trek articles. AceTracer 12:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - It appears to be original research only in the fact that some poor soul took the time to dig through the movies and pull out all this information. The BttF trilogy is very convoluted in its timelines, and this article would be extremely helpful for many people who get confused watching them. I popped in my DVDs and spot checked a few things that were new to me, and it all seems to be there in the movies, so the movies would appear to be the sources. Very cool article. It would be a shame to lose it. --Willscrlt 12:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You need a scorecard to watch these movies, and this is it. Alansohn 22:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not really OR because it can be sourced. It's too much information to put into the main article, so it seems like it should stay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs better sourcing in places, but an excellent plot description. VKPS 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Tough call. Without the sources, this could have been put together as a result of watching the movies over and over, which would be original research and should be deleted. On the other hand, if the sources (the scripts, for example) are readily available and put into the article, this would meet WP:V and WP:RS and make an article worth keeping. Keep contingent upon sourcing - if the sources don't appear in the article in a reasonable time frame, say a week or two, then we should revisit the AfD for a deletion. B.Wind 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be WP:OR any more than culling through the Internet looking for sources. Original research does not mean taking it upon yourself to research cited information. As an anonymous entry above stated, the entire work is cited within the movie itself. WP:OR would kick in if the person had introduced new ideas or theories, added things not found within the movie, etc. This is clearly not a case of WP:OR--just very good research of a source (the trilogy itself is the source). Putting the scripts into the article would be a copyright violation. I see no reason to lengthen the article with useless bloat to cite something anyone can see clearly by watching the DVD or videos. --Willscrlt 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not advocating putting the script in the article, but if the information is found in the script, you can cite the script instead, thus allaying your "bloat" concern, and take care of WP:V and WP:RS. B.Wind 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and not a tough call. This is a relevant guide to the plot, and for many it will be helpful. It is obviously sourced in the films, and putting in frame or time references would not really add much. Good compilations of this sort are what an encyclopedia is for.DGG 01:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Clean Up Tfleming 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Clean up It has a good picture. This article could use a lot of cleaning up and it helps to explain what is happening in the movies. Cnriaczoy42 22:23, 6 December 2006 (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.