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. Synthesis based only on primary sources, with some duplicate content already in main articles, no real world information, not to mention being almost completely plot summary with a dash of original research. Black Kite 12:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alien and Predator timeline[edit]

Alien and Predator timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A previous nomination apparently came to no consensus. Since that time, little to nothing has been done to address the concerns raised there. Despite the concerns that the article is not verifiable and consists of personal synthesis of the fictional works, no third-party sources are cited, nor, so far as I can find, do any even exist. Aside from the questions of notability which this raises, the significant and unanswered questions regarding verifiability and synthesis preclude even a merge at this time. As such, deletion is the only possible alternative, as without secondary sources to verify the information, those questions cannot be resolved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep is an obvious possible alternative since there is no pressing reason to delete and the article seems well-constructed (unlike the AFD as the article hasn't been tagged). And it's too soon for a sequel to AFD#1. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Tag is fixed, thanks for bringing that to my attention. As for "too soon", general practice is that one should wait for at least one month after a "no consensus" result, and the previous nomination which had this result was in April. I do believe that original research and lack of verifiability are pressing reasons to delete, why do you believe not? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Consider the first entry. This is sourced to the director, as reported in a secondary source. The detail is thus neither original nor unverifiable. There's a mass of other AvP material out there and per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:DEADLINE, it is our method to let this accumulate into the article over time. Your impatient desire to abort this process requires better reasons for support. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a comment: I don't think a "making of" featurette on the DVD of the film, expecially an interview with the director, counts as a secondary source. I believe that featurettes and interviews are considered primary sources, correct? (Interviews most certainly are). --IllaZilla (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Also, to respond to Colonel Warden, while we do allow limited use of primary sources (such as the work itself or director's comments), we allow such use only if the use is simple and noncontroversial. Stating "Luke Skywalker was a character in the film Star Wars", citing Star Wars, is fine, as this is a simple, factual assertion. On the other hand, assembly of a timeline is, as you stated yourself, complex, and as is clear from the last AfD, controversial (some agree that the film verifies the timeline, others do not). This is exactly the type of original synthesis prohibited by the ban on original research. In such a case, secondary sources are required to verify the material. Those sources, from everything I can find, don't even exist, so it's not a question of eventualism—without secondary, independent sourcing to verify the article's content, that problem can simply never be solved. That is exactly why I've nominated for deletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment So far as I can tell, the facts presented in the article have not been seriously challenged and so they are not controversial and do not require especially good sources. All the tapdancing about sources just seems to be Wikilawyering to dress up an insubstantial bias against contemporary fiction - "cruft", "unencyclopedic" and other forms of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But the argument that primary sources cannot be used in such cases is nonsense on stilts. For example, I have recently been working on an article about a Dickens character - Gradgrind. I cited the primary source on a point of detail because this is the best source. Secondary sources in such cases can misquote or otherwise distort the facts of the original and so they are less trustworthy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the question of sources here goes beyond simply whether the films verify the dates given in the timeline or not (and it's been challenged as to whether or not they do...having watched all the films several times I'm not convinced that they do, as few dates are given in the films). I don't think anyone is saying that primary sources can't be used at all. What I think is being said...at least what I'm arguing...is that primary sources alone do not establish the notability or significance of the article's subject and are not enough to support a stand-alone article on that subject. For example, in your Gradgrind article you have a primary source to cite the character's role in the novel. This is perfectly acceptable and indeed the best source to reference that information. However, you also have 2 third-party secondary sources discussing the character's impact on language and how the character is meant to satirize another notable author. It's the secondary sources that show why the character is notable. If the character had no impact or significance outside of the book, then it wouldn't be appropriate to write an encyclopedia article on him. Articles about works of fiction should contain real-world context from third-party sources; this is Wikipedia's primary means of establishing notability. The no original research policy specifically says "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The verifiability policy also states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Even if the films verified the dates in the timeline, they don't tell us why the timeline of events in these films is notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. That's the core problem here, I believe. How is a timeline of the Alien and Predator films any more notable than any other timeline I might concoct for any other fictional franchise? Without any third-party sources, I have to conclude that it isn't notable, and thus seems to fail the policy that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a guidebook of the Alien and Predator universe. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well said. Dlohcierekim 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not the core problem since the notability of the Alien, Predator and Alien vs Predator movies and other works is beyond question. This article is part of a huge bundle of articles covering this extensive material and is just a chronology in a list format. In providing a list of dates from the mass of source material, it performs a similar function to the individual articles which list those dates separately. If not presented in the current form, it might be merged into another of the many companion articles where it would attract little comment. The extravagant arguments above seem quite redundant to normal content editing and do not justify the extreme measure of deletion. The real issue here is whether the chronology is actually accurate and verifiable. This is what the readership cares about - whether the information is right or not. If the matter were not notable, the existence of the article would be unimportant since, by definition, no-one would read it. Traffic statistics indicate that the article actually gets about 5000 hits per month and these seems adequate reason for us to maintain and improve the facts that it presents. The editors who have done the work of getting the article to its current state are to be commended for their efforts in providing material for so many readers. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking as an editor who has made major contributions to the article, I still don't think it should stay. Just because the films themselves are notable doesn't mean it's appropriate to create dozens of "spin-off" articles on related topics that have little to no notability in and of themselves. By that rationale we could run off and create separate articles for every prop, every character, and every other random thing associated with the series in any way, whether there were sources to support those articles or not. Notability is not an inherited characteristic; it's only appropriate to "spin-off" an article if there are enough secondary sources to support an independent article on the sub-topic (for example, just because a politician is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them doesn't automatically mean that there should also be separate articles about their wife, children, and pets). Article traffic is also not necessarily an indicator of notability. I definitely think that the basic information in this article could be better presented in the parent articles about the franchises, such as Alien (franchise). But notice that that article already contains brief plot summaries of each film in the series. The timeline article simply sythesizes this info in a different form. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Complex info set. Contents verifiable from Series. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Articles may not be based purely on primary sources, per WP:V and WP:NOR. Therefore the claim that "contents [are] verifiable from the series" is irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please, your comment is completely wiki-lawyering and is totally irrelevant. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I find it rather rude of you to dismiss the comment as "wikilawyering" and "totally irrelevant". I am pointing out that the article fails 2 of the core article content policies, which is why it was brought here for discussion in the first place. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  After u used irrelevant towards my rationale and simply used it towards your rationale, I find it beyond unbelievably rude of to question something that is obviously fair. This comment under the circumstances is incomprehensible. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Incomprehensible? How exactly? I'm simply making the point that articles cannot only be based on primary sources. That is one of Wikipedia's core policies. I'm sorry you have a problem with that, but it's the whole reason we're debating whether to keep this article or not. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the timeline helps alien and predator fans understand the chronological sequence of events in the series. --Tj999 (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems like a rather weak argument to me, since Wikipedia is not a fansite or fanservice. The series of events are already summarized in the plot sections of the film articles, and the fictional events themselves do not merit a separate article on the subject of their chronology (especially in this series where the sequence of events is blatantly obvious even to a non-fan). --IllaZilla (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the guys and I who put the timeline together actually had to scan the movies and their novalizations to get the correct event settings. This is not a fan based article. This is a fan help article. I did not creat the article for my own health. I did it to give the facts to those who did not have them. --Tj999 (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per my reasonings in the article's previous AfD, mainly:

1. It consists entirely of synthesis based only on primary sources, which makes it original research (thus failing one of our 3 core policies).
2. It amounts to nothing more than plot summary in a different form, without real-world context, and the plots are already summarized quite well in the articles about the films themselves (thus failing a second of the 3 core policies, "what Wikipeida is not", namely WP:PLOT).
3. The verifiability of the information has been challenged and not addressed (thus failing the third of the 3 core policies).
4. The notability of the subject has been called into question, and no reliable third-party sources have been brought to bear to show notability, nor is there any evidence to suggest that such third-party sources even exist that could be used.
5. Despite some cleanup and improvements in the writing, none of the article's major issues have been addressed or solved in the 68 days since the conclusion of the previous AfD, despite several maintenance tags having been placed on it even before that time. This leads me to conclude that the article's issues of notability, verifiability, and original research cannot be fixed, or at least that no one who is actively working on the article is endeavoring to fix them.

Though there is some precedent to suggest that timeline articles such as these do have a place on Wikipedia (see for example the Narnian timeline, which is a Featured List article...note that it uses third-party sources and real-world context), they must still be able to meet inclusion criteria based on our core article content policies. It is my belief that this article does not meet these criteria or policies and it is unlikely that it could be improved to the point where it would meet even these minimum standards. There may be other examples in Category:Fictional timelines that we can point to to show extremes at both ends: timeline articles which are exemplary and which meet our criteria/policies and others which fail them. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This rationale contains too much policy and is completely wikilawyering. So it's irrelevant per wiki-lawyering policy. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Pardon me, but where is there a precedent indicating that it's unacceptable to cite our core policies when explaining one's opinion on a Wikipedia-related issue, especially an AfD? My reasons for supporting deletion are based on the policies, therefore it is pertinent to point to them, whether you consider it "wiki-lawyering" or not. Your response seems childish and not very civil. If you can't form a good counter-argument that doesn't amount to "I'm dismissing this comment because it's based on policies that I don't like", then I kindly ask you to refrain. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Precedent??? That's clearly a legal term. I rest my case. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it's an everyday word with a definition that's perfectly appropriate to this discussion: "An act in the past which may be used as an example to help decide the outcome of similar instances in the future". It also has a second definition as a legal term, but just because I have a decent vocabulary doesn't mean I'm a lawyer (Mr. "I-rest-my-case"). For what's it worth, I'm actually a grad student in history. We obviously disagree with each other's arguments. Let's just let it be, shall we, and let others state their points. There's really no point to us continuing to bicker. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A textbook case of synthesis and original research. Quale (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally engrossing timeline. No real world significance. How can anyone have a rationale that relies too much on policy??? An indiscriminate collection of information. "Usefulness" is not a valid keep argument. The timeline is in and of itself not notable and serves as no more than a plot guide. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. That the synthesis may have been made off-wiki is irrelevant unless the source making it can be shown to meet WP:RS, which I don't think this one can. Deor (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Wouldn't this indicate third-party sources which exist to boast the notability of the topic and appropriateness of using it + information from primary sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk • contribs) 03:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Deor is, I believe, bringing up a new source to illustrate the point that the only third-party sources that seem to exist for this information are entirely unreliable. This is the only secondary source I've seen so far that could apply to this article, and it clearly wouldn't pass WP:RS. It's been 2 and a half months since the close of the previous AfD; plenty of time for interested editors to find reliable secondary sources to support the article. None have (check the article's history...no-one has even attempted to insert any), and as many here point out it's highly unlikely that any even exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Or how about this one: [1]? It seems "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." and really, nobody seems to be arguing that the facts are wrong from the primary sources, it seems people are just hammering for non-primary sources to back of claims of non-notability. CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  How you can claim that source as "trustworthy or authoritative" is absolutely ludicrous to me. Take one look at its home page: "The Movie Timeline is the history of everything, taken from one simple premise: that everything you see in the movies is true - the real mixes with the fictitious, so long as it's reported in a movie somewhere...Welcome to a self-confessed complete waste of time...here's a bunch of pointless movie trivia, arranged in the form of an over-long fake chronology. So jump on in - the time-wasting's lovely." Yeah, that totally sounds like a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Plus it only covers 1 of the 8 films that this article is attempting to synthesize. I could call all of its dates into question, since I don't recall any specific dates being given in Alien vs. Predator. As a matter of fact, if you'll read some of the "delete" comments in this and the previous AfD, several editors have expressed the concern that the primary sources (the films) don't actually support most of the dates given in the timeline article. Verifiability is one of the core arguments in this discussion. I'm actually going through the films at the moment (since I own them all) to see if I can shed any more light on this verifiability issue (and as part of other article improvements I'm working on). So far I've only gone through Alien, which doesn't give a single date at all in the entire film. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for violating WP:NOT#PLOT and possibly WP:SYNTH, or merge with Alien vs. Predator as a complement for interested readers. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Merging would be good but the timeline is too long. --Tj999 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If someone watches theses movies and creates a timeline, its considered OR. If someone watches theses movies, creates a timeline, and then sources the movies, then its not OR??? Delete per fancruft, OR, no real world information -- Coasttocoast (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What else do you source when you are creating a timeline for a film series? --Tj999 (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Some third party sources independent of the subject, ideally, but as myself and several others have pointed out it's unlikely that any reliable third-party sources have been published that specifically discuss the chronology or timeline of events in this series. See the Narnian timeline, it uses a couple of third-party sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, the Alien and Predator seires don't have other material like Narnia does. Though there is a Marine Handbook for the movie Aliens that might include some information. I have not seen the book, but maybe it is at a library or something. --Tj999 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Could not locate a copy on Google book search. Dlohcierekim 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The book he's referring to is the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual. That's a primary source, though, as it's directly connected to the film franchise. It's not a third-party analysis of the subject, it's a manual that presents the fictional aspects of the marines and their equipment in an in-universe fashion, similar to A Guide to the Star Wars Universe or the Star Wars Encyclopedia. These are all books that were released as official supplements to the films, so I don't believe they're considered secondary sources, especially because they don't contain real-world analysis and are works of fiction themselves. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems a good and reliable secondary source because it is by a different author. It is reasonable to suppose that he would have good access to the source material and that his output would be checked as owners of such valuable properties are usually concerned to protect them from degradation by poor work. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appropriate alternative way to present the material--in fact, probably clearer for people who aren't fans. The material is documented by the primary sources, as appropriate for articles dealing with plot. DGG (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment --IllaZilla comments about Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual is just more wikilawyering. The standards he or she are suggesting would require that every editor on wikipedia have the equivalent of a law degree specializing in wikipedia policy. Not so kwel. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether you think having standards is "kwel" or not is not pertinent to this discussion. It's only natural to assume that newer editors won't have an in-depth understanding of Wikipedia's policies or processes, which is why we always assume good faith and try to improve content. However, when other editors with experience see something that they feel is inappropriate, it's totally within their rights to debate whether we should keep it. That's exactly what we're doing here. This article has already been through an AfD before, 2 and a half months ago. Since then no one has done anything to address its fundamental problems. It doesn't appear that anyone involved in this discussion is totally new to Wikipedia. We all have some experience with the policies, which by the way were formed by consensus amongst many editors (even though you seem to want to dismiss ones that you don't think are "kwel", and by extention dismiss anyone who happens to agree with them). As for my comments about the Technical Manual, they come from the fact that I've actually thumbed through the thing and know what its contents are. Colonel Warden, it's not a secondary source. It's an officially licensed book that's part of the expanded universe of the series, just as the novels and comics are. It's entirely a work of fiction; it presents all of its information from an in-universe perspective and doesn't have any real-world analysis. It describes things like the M577 A.P.C. and M56 smart gun as if they were real. I'm not criticizing its contents, I'm just saying that makes it as much of a primary source as any of the comic books or other works of fiction, in the same way that The Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual is considered a primary source reference for the expanded universe of Star Trek. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I already understood the nature of the work and still consider it a secondary work as a matter of fact. The presentation of the work in a fictional format is merely a matter of style. What matters for our purposes in verifying the chronology is that it treats the dates as canonical. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a note on that, then: This particular franchise has a notorious lack of "official" canon between its different forms of media. The films follow one another, and the comics follow one another, etc.; but several of the comics completely contradict the events in the films and vice versa. There is no established canon for the franchise as a whole, as there is for Star Wars. That's why the timeline article is fairly limited in its scope, only covering the films. The Technical Manual is meant to complement the film Aliens, but it's at best questionable whether it's considered canonical or not and whether any dates given in it would match the "official" timeline of the films. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Like many of IllaZilla's comments --This particular franchise has a notorious lack--without a source is completely hypocritical and comes off as specious, given the standards that he or she demands from all editors. Experienced editors don't waste time with wiki-policy. Nor do they argue about double-standards that even they could not and clearly fail to live up. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a trap. I offer a well-reasoned argument backed up by policies, and you dismiss my opinion as "wiki-lawyering". If I were to simply say "this article should go because I don't like it", you'd dismiss it as unreasoned and having no basis in policy or practice. I have no stomach for games. You're simply being petulant because I said that one of the points in your initial comment was irrelevant. You should know that you can't make me angry. I'm done responding to your repeated groundless rebuttals and insults. Happy editing. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that the only issue considered here is the sources. After comparing the article up for deletion with the article Narnian timeline, that's the only real issue I see. Both deal with fictional timelines, both deal only with the fictional timeline. (True, the Narnian article tells you about some appearant real world dates, but you have to realize that the 'real world' presents in the tale of Narnia is no more our world then that of Alien vs Predator is.) Both timelines are subject to some controversy as well. In case of the Narnian ones there is dispute between experts in the field according to the article itself, and in the AvP case, there are canon issues due to the myriad of uses the concept has. Were one to consider all sources of AvP stories in their canon however, one would need to involve all sources of tales touching any part of Narnia as well. Since in the case of Narnia all sources not in the main, lewis-written sequence are ignored, I think it's not unfair to ignore all non-movie sources of the Alien and predator universe. So, in my opinion, there are only three real issues to consider here. Firstly, you could claim that AvP is pulpy science fiction, and not worth the space on Wikipedia. This standing is valid enough, as it is obviously subjective. Secondly, you could claim that there are not enough reliable secondary sources to signify the information. To verify this, one would have to read the books written about the AvP movie universe and decide if the books are reliable, and if the books contain the information. Lastly, you could decide that the points I just made are all good and valid, and therefor put Narnian timeline up for deletion as well. Personally, I think that the article fits well in Wikipedia, but that has nothing to do with the policies, I've found Wikipedia a huge source for information, much information of which is trivial. Note I did not claim this information is trivial. I'd like to hear any thoughts on my post, but I'll simply ignore or mock any post which responds with nonsense, make false arguments or blatant insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.25.78.195 (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As others have said above, this is an obvious example of original research. Terraxos (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is an inappropriate article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as verifiable and notable. Because it does not offer an original thesis, it is not original research. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for sub-articles and cruft is never a valid argument. Providing a timeline based on sources does NOT advance an original argument. "Cruft" is an unacceptable argument that cannot be taken seriously. The films can serve as verifiable evidence. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for sub or spinoff articles. Which is acceptable on Wikipedia. The films can be watched in the real world and thus it has notability to real humans who watch and care about them. It is encyclopedic per the First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Aliens and Predator. The film articles need secondary sources, a timeline associated with those articles, as sub or spinoff article, only requires primary sources. A timeline does not need analysis. THAT would be original research. real world context is obvious. Just because something is obvious is not a reason for us not to have an article on it. But it isn't original research and is verfiable. Then you're arguing for a merge and redirect without deletion per the GFDL. There is no reason to outright delete the article and in the worst case it would be merged and redirected without deletion. A legitimate search term in the worst case scenario would be redirected without deletion. We only must delete copy vios, personal attacks, and hoaxes. A timeline of a significant franchise is consistent, per the First pillar, with a science fiction encyclopedia. Plus, "cruft" is never considered an academic argument. Actually, the article is completely encyclopedic and "cruft" is a non argument. Wikipedia is the place for syntheiszing plot summaries of film series. The article passes WP:N, WP:V, and WP:IS. Per our First pillar, Wikipedia is a science fictional encyclopedia. It is NOT just a general interest encyclopedia, as the First pillar clearly states it is "general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." The mission of Wikipedia according to the overwhelming majority of its contriubutors its to contain articles of this nature which is appropriate for Wikipedia per our policies and traditions. Per Wikipedia:Five pillars, it is encyclopedic per our First pillar of one of our most core policies, i.e. it concerns an incredibly notable franchise and presents verifiable information in clear, organized, and discriminate manner. It is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction or Aliens or Predator or all three. There are over 1,000 published specialized science fiction encyclopedias; thus there is no reason for a paperless encyclopedia not to share elements with those. Thus, I am citing a specific POLICY, in first the FIRST PILLAR of that policy when I note that it is an element of a specialized encyclopedia. As for any other possible personal interpretations of other policies that may question the reason for inclusion of this article, then apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, as removing this article "prevents" editors "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia." The article is a legitimate search term created by a good faith editor and defended by at least one other good faith editor. In even a worse case scenario we would redirect the article without deleting it. Deletion, which removes editors' contribution history from the public eye, is an extreme last resort reserved for hoaxes, personal attacks, copyright violations, etc. We do not delete articles when a redirect exist and since we have articles and Alien and Predator series, we have such redirects. Saying sources do not exist or the articles' lack of sources does not mean they do not exist. Considering how much coverage the film series has had in Fangoria, Starlog, et al, I have a hard time believing that given enough time and research the article could not be better sourced, but even so, sub-articles are permitted to rely on primary sources. I can never take an argument that has a word like "cruft" seriously. It adds nothing to any conversations, just as an vulgar or unacademic word does and distracts from whatever other merits the argument may or may not have. The article is necessary for providing the chronology in clear and encyclopedic chronological context. Alien and Predator are not part of Star Wars, so Wookipedia has no relevance to this article. And even so we have plenty of overlap with other wikis, which is fine, vecause we are the most comprehensive overall wiki. We are here to write a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that is the sum total of human knowledge, that combines general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs. There is no solid basis not to have this article; there is no benefit to our goals by deleting it. We do, however, have potential gain by keeping it. The topic is hardly "trivial". It concerns the context of a blockbuster and notable film series. It presents the subject in a coherent and discrmininate manner. All this time wasted trying to delete good faith articles could and should be spent finding sources and improving them. Articles that are not hoaxes, not libel, not copy vios, etc. should not be deleted. Can we collect reliable sources? Yes. Should the article be kept? Yes. Is this article representative in part of what Wikipedia is? Yes. A timeline presents material that may or may not be spread out in a bunch of articles in a far more clear and concise manner and therefore serves a valuable purpose. I would be shocked if you cannot find any reviews of the films that do not discuss the chronology and timeline in some manner. All of these are reasons for inclusion. There is no reason for deletion that benefits anyone. The article passes the Five pillars and Ignore all rules and I see nothing reasonably convincing otherwise. So in other words, you're actually arguing that the article must be kept. Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant keep after all. Notability is inherited. Sub-articles only need primary sources. There is NO consensus that notability is not inherited. Sub-articles like this one only need primary sources and notability is definitely inherited in this case. Every article on Wikipedia does not have to be GA or FA status. As has been established in discussion on Plot, many have argued that sub-articles or spinoff articles are not the same as a regular or mother article. All encyclopedia articles synthesize, whether they do so from primary or secondary evidence. Anything that uses more than one source, synthesizes from those sources. That is what encyclopedias do. Notability is inherited from article on the subjects. I have a hard time doubting with all the publications and reviews out there that published sources do not touch upon the timeline in some manner. The article does indeed merit a Wikipedia article of its own. A spinoff article only needs to be based on primary sources. The article passes Notability (fiction), Notability, and What Wikipedia is. As for the tone, that can be fixed by editing. The movies are reliable sources. Notability is unquestionable here. "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia. The article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. There are no legitimate reasons to delete this particular article which is notable and verifiable. Which is not needed on sub or spinoff articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll be brief in my response, since this appears to be a rather jumbled copy/paste of all your arguments from the previous AfD, which I've already responded to there:

  1. Only 1 editor in this (second) AfD has called the article "cruft", so there's no need to go on extensively about your feelings on the term and it being a "non-argument". I do agree that a more reasoned rationale is required, but several such rationales have already been presented.
  2. The concept of original research is not restricted solely to articles which advance a thesis. Synthesizing primary source information is part of writing an encyclopedia, of course, but an article which consists only of primary source synthesis, without any third-party source material to support it, is original research. This is clearly true of this article, for which the creator admits he had to make analyses and speculation because very few actual dates are given in the entire series of films.
  3. Deletion is not reserved only for extreme cases such as copyvio and personal attacks. Per the deletion policy (bolding indicates my emphasis): "Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to violation of copyright, content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source, and unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons. In the normal operations of Wikipedia, approximately five thousand pages are deleted each day through the processes outlined below."
  4. The First Pillar does say that Wikipedia incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. However, this is not a free pass for inclusion of any topic. In fact, the First Pillar goes on to give many examples of what Wikipedia is not, including "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The argument that this article's content would be "consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Aliens and Predator" is a very weak one. Firstly, no such encyclopedia exists. Secondly, by that rationale I could create an article on any subject x under the claim that it would be "consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on x" (ie. an article about my dog would be consistent with a specialized encyclopedia about my dog). This is why Wikipedia has notability guidelines which rely primarily on the subject's coverage in reliable secondary sources.
  5. So-called "sub-articles" are not exempt from our core article policies. Notability is not "inherited" from one article to the next. A subject should not be spun-off into its own article unless there is enough secondary source material to support a stand-alone article on that subject (or such sources could reasonably be assumed to be available). The claim that "sub-articles only need primary sources" is completely contrary to the core article policies and guidelines and the vast consensus that formed those policies. As many have pointed out, there do not seem to be any secondary sources that specifically discuss the timeline of events in this film series, therefore this is not a topic that has received sufficient third-party coverage to warrant a stand-alone article.
  6. I highly doubt that the phrase "Alien and Predator timeline" is a likely search term. I'm not sure how you would provide evidence that it is. Article traffic does not indicate use of the title phrase as a search term.

  At this point we are both merely reiterating points we've made before. I don't think there's anything to be gained by rehashing these arguments which already came to no consensus in the first AfD. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Any use of "cruft" is unhelpful. The article is unoriginal research. Deletion is not justifiable in this case. The article is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on fiction, timelines, films, etc. Sub-articles are consistent with our core policy principles and notability is inherited from the other articles. The phrase is obviously a likely search term as multiple editors came to the article and the AfD. I agree that there's nothing to be gained by rehashing the same arguments the failed to get the article deleted the first time around. Instead efforts should be focused on improving the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, there are many ways people arrive at articles and AfDs other than by using the article title as a search term. A link to the article appears in Template:Alien, for one thing, so it appears in the navbox in every Alien-related article. I'm sure some editors arrived here because they are AfD watchers. It's probably even likely that at least a few had never seen the article before this AfD was initiated. For me personally, the article was on my watchist. In any case I feel that "likely search term" is a weak argument to keep, as we have no way (that I know of) of tracking what phrases users type in the "search" box. Common sense says that words and phrases like "alien", "Alien (film)", and "Alien vs. Predator" are certainly likely search terms, but I for one highly doubt that "Alien and Predator timeline" would be. But again, we have no way of knowing, so it's a pretty weak rationale either way. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Nevertheless they arrive at and so any arguments presented to delete here are weak. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I should also like to point out WP:NOTINHERITED as well as this recent discussion at WP:N, both of which assert that notability is not automatically inherited from "main" articles to "spin-off" articles. In fact, "notability is inherited" is included as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, an essay which you yourself have cited above in reference to the "cruft" argument (re: WP:ITSCRUFT). See also the summary style guideline on "unnecessary splits", which further supports the argument that WP:N applies even to spin-off articles: "Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors should fully develop the main article first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the main topic and the subtopic." I fully disagree with the notion of "inherited notability", and I believe these examples show that the general community consensus also disagrees with it. Therefore your continued insistence that "notability is inherited" does not carry much weight, unless you can provide some example of consensus or precedent to support it. I find the Al Gore III example you give unconvincing both because the article was eventually deleted, and because the arguments on both sides seem to have rested on the subject's coverage or lack thereof in secondary sources. You have cited only a single editor's opinion in support of the "inherited notability" idea, and I note in the very comment you cite that the editor's assertion of notability relies on media coverage. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no consensus that notability is not inherited which is why it is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument that notability is inherited is the argument to avoid. I've provided at least 3 areas where consensus seems to indicate this. I think WP:NOTINHERITED sums it up rather well: Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that. In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case. At the very least, we should not assume the notion of inherited notability and should discuss it on a case-by-case basis. In this situation I believe we have a topic that has not been proven to be notable, due to a complete lack of secondary sources. There has been plenty of time given for editors to find such sources (2 and a half months since the conclusion of the previous AfD), so I think we've assumed good faith and given a fair chance for such sources to be found. They haven't been found, so I think it's pretty clear this is a non-notable subject. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument that notability is not inherited is the argument to avoid. I've provided an area where consensus seems to indicate this. Even the quotation you have above says "this is not always the case," which applies to this particular article, which is notable in its own right anyway and is covered in plenty of sources which means it is pretty clear that this is a notable subject. Wikipedia does not have a deadline. We have had articles that have taken years to be properly sourced. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I find most of your statements in the previous comment to be absolutely incorrect. WP:NOTINHERITED indicates that we should avoid arguing that notability is inherited either down or up. I find "notability is inherited" to be a non-argument based on that essay, the summary style guidlines, and clear consensus at WP:N. The "area of clear consensus" you provided was merely this comment from another editor who happens to share the same opinion as you do (two can play that game, BtW), and clearly the consensus in that discussion was that notability is not inherited because the AfD that comment comes from closed as delete due to numerous editors citing notability concerns, 9 of whom agreed that notability is not inherited (vs. 2 who believed that it is). Your example actually disproves your claim. You also state that this article topic (the timeline of events in the film series) is "covered in plenty of sources", yet the overwhelming opinion of editors here is that it is not covered in any outside sources. Other than the films themselves, what sources do you have to offer that cover it? Not a single reliable secondary source has been presented by anyone, in the course of 3 months and now 2 AfDs. We may not have deadlines, but we do have common sense, and we have assumed good faith in this article's case for plenty long enough to honestly admit that either there are no such sources available, or no one is willing to look for them. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I find most of your statements in the previous comment to be absolutely incorrect. WP:NOTINHERITED indicates that we should avoid arguing that notability is inherited either down or up. I find "notability is not inherited" to be a non-argument based on that essay and lack of clear consensus elsewhere. The close in the Al Gore discussion was incorrect; it should have been "no consensus" and clearly there was no consensus in that discussion regarding whether or not notability is inherited. Your examples actually disprove your claim. You also state that this article topic (the timeline of events in the film series) is "not covered in plenty of sources", yet the overwhelming opinion of editors here is that it is covered in outside sources. Other than the films themselves, reviews and other publishes sources do you have been offered that cover it. Obviously reliable secondary source have been presented by editors in the course of 3 months and now 2 unnecessary AfDs. We do not have deadlines, but we do have common sense, and we have assumed good faith in this article's case for plenty long enough to honestly admit that there are such sources available, and time is being lost repeatedly arguing over the article in AfDs rather than looking for them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but flipping my own words back on me won't succeed. Notability is not inherited. Broad consensus supports this. Constantly repeating that it is doesn't make the statement any truer. Just because you disagree with the close of the Al Gore III AfD doesn't mean there wasn't consensus (which there clearly was). No reliable secondary sources have been presented for this article by anyone. The only sources brought forth have been this and this, neither of which could even remotely be considered reliable. Reliable, published third-party sources do not appear to be available covering this topic, and they are required to support the claim that this is a notable subject. The sooner you and others accept that, the sooner we can get on with the business of writing an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information. I agree that we are wasting time repeatedly arguing over these issues, so I will simply wish you happy editing. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is inherited. Consensus does not support otherwise. Constantly repeating that it does does not make the statement true. The Al Gore III AfD lacked consensus. Reliable secondary sources have been presented for this article, which is a notable subject. The sooner you and others accept that, the sooner we can get on with the business of writing a comprehensive encyclopedia/almanac. I obviously agree with your last sentence, so happy editing to you as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCH. This is someone's observations of a fictional work arranged in a novel way. ORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCHORIGINALRESEARCH. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not advance a thesis, so it's not really original research and it's stuff others can verify relatively easily. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The thesis is that the movies fit together into a fictional continuity in this certain way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is hardly "original" research when some of the movies are titled "Alien vs. Predator". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If this were "list of Alien and Predator works," sure. The arrangement and continuity are the original research, not the mere inclusion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously the events in Alien versus Predator take place prior to Alien versus Predator to, just as obviously the first two Predator movies occur before that "vs." films and the four Alien films after. I don't see how anyone could reasonably come to a different arrangement or chronology. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  On the other hand, assembly of a timeline is complex, and as is clear from the last AfD, controversial (some agree that the film verifies the timeline, others do not). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The films and publications on them are both notable and reliable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Films featuring Predators are set in the present, films with just the Aliens were set in the future. Info is unworthy of a timeline. Alientraveller (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It is more complex than that and so is worthy of a timeline. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Says who? Better than best, --dorftrottel (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Original research, no real-world significance. dorftrottel (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - OR, no claim to real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: This article is unoriginal research with real world significance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful information about the subject. Timelines of fictional events are no more OR than timelines of nonfictional events. You don't need a source to say that a certain article was published in the New York Times on such and such a date, the article is the source. Ford MF (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very well sources, i see absolutly no Original Research in this. Myheartinchile (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  There's not a single reliable third-party secondary source to establish any real-world notability, you cannot seriously call that very well sourced. Just say honestly and up front that you are in favour of keeping the article in spite of the very weak to nonexistent reasons to keep it under current policy and guidelines. I could appreciate that. Our inclusion threshold is subject to constant discussion and change, but saying that the article is 'very well sourced' is bollocks. dorftrottel (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cannot find any references to refute the claim that this is original research. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Other than the works themselves, you must mean. Ford MF (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I tried looking for info derived from the films themselves, but so far nothing seems to support materials as seen from our Wikipedia article. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What I suggest here would be to add a reception section to the article, i.e. use reviews that comment on the timeline (I recall reading such reviews, especially critics who discuss the continuity of the Alien versus Predator series). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:42, 13 June 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.