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 no consensus. Short close rationale: Doesn't meet GNG, probably won't, but there's good content here that can be and should be used. The nitty-gritty reasoning? Read on.

First, let's throw out the arguments which don't hold here: WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SIZE and WP:FICT. The main arguments boiled down to whether this meets the notability guideline, and the whole original research bit. (A note before going on: I didn't consider the Chronology of the Harry Potter series in this close because while the arguments were based on similar elements, the two articles are quite different in composition and content; it's not fair to apply the same standards in this respect.) Does this article contain unverified claims and original research? Most definitely. But AfD, as noted below, is not cleanup, and primary sources have been provided that could be used to reliably source much of the article. Of course, when possible it's nice to rely on reliable secondary sources, some of which have been provided as well.

But that still leaves the question of whether the Chronology of Star Wars meets notability guidelines. There are references to the timeline, as demonstrated, but also shown none of these rise to the level of significance required by the general notability guideline. However I have nagging doubts about outright deletion in this respect. Editors below have shown there is content that does bear significance to the series as a whole. In the interests of preserving good content, I recommend a merge, either to Star Wars or to Star Wars universe (which could make good use of the out-of-universe discussions of canon found in the lead of the article in question.) However what, where, when to merge and such is a decision best made outside the purview of AfD. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Star Wars[edit]

Chronology of Star Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series. An un-sourced, in-universe, non-noteable article. While Star Wars might be noteable, the timeline/chronology is not. This belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. The articles fall foul of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:SYNTH, WP:SIZE and WP:FICT. Dalejenkins | 01:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the closer - As the nominator suggests, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series. As there has been much discussion covering similar topics on two separate AfD pages, in order to determine clear consensus, I ask that the closer take all the comments from both discussions into consideration of both closures. - jc37 17:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the Star Wars stories appear in so many media, and have attracted so much attention, that this is almost necessary to allow readers to make sense of the disparate articles. The BBY fan notation is widely used. References like The New Essential Chronology give outside sourcing for it. --JJL (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned book is a primary source - that's like saying that everybody who has a website should have a wikipage regardless of WP:BIO. Dalejenkins | 01:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's a book written by third-party authors about what others have written and as such it's per definition a secondary source (as not being written by those who have created the material in question). The style used to do so (in-universe rather than outside view) does not change this fact. Regards SoWhy 08:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a timeline of plot summary in licensed fictional Star Wars works. That's a licensed fictional Star Wars work. How is that independent of the subject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is independent because it was not written by the subject - persons such as Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker. Furthermore, it is not "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.". The point of the guideline you cite is to show "strong evidence of interest by the world at large". The main chronology exists in numerous editions and so this constitutes such strong evidence. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was written by employees of Lucasfilm. It's not useful for commentary on the subject of the Star Wars timeline, because the only thoughts on the subject are going to be those who create and maintain that timeline. There's no hope of commentary from people other than people selling you that franchise, who naturally are interested in it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is common for reliable sources to be written by those who have an economic interest in the topic. For example, a mathematics textbook will typically be written by a person who has a vested interest in maths education/research. This is no bar to our usage of such sources. The guideline makes it clear that problems arise when people are writing about themself or it is overtly promotional like advertising. This is not the case here. The chronology of the Star Wars universe is of popular interest and it is naturally written by authors who have a specal expertise in the topic. If the work is official then it is authoritative and so much the better. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But a mathematics textbook will be covering concepts covered by many different texts, and not covering theories created by the mathematician or the publisher. Problems arise when we look to a Lucasfilm work for commentary on Lucasfilm's works. If the timeline is of popular interest, where's the commentary from authors who aren't in the employ of Lucasfilm? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of references to the Star Wars chronology out there, see for example. There's no IF about it - the claim that this topic is not notable is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler Garden on Google News, and yet Adolf Hitler's garden is still a redlink.

All of your Google News hits are mentioning this book briefly, or using the not-uncommon English word "chronology" or variations of same in an article about Star Wars. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's law indicates that we are done. Thank you for playing. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just insanely amused by "Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, popularly known as the Nazi Party. He was also noted for his contributions to gardening." Not sure if it was vandalism or a parody somewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more careful examination with Google would lead you to this, which leads to this 1938 article describing Hitler's Berghof residence in great detail ("The gardens are laid out simply enough. Lawns at different levels are planted with flowering shrubs, as well as roses and other blooms in due season. The Führer, I may add, has a passion for cut flowers in his home, as well as for music."). There's also this ("Was it creepy to sleep in Hitler's garden, where Bormann and Goering literally strutted their stuff?"). Perhaps Hitler's garden is not quite as non-notable as you thought? Perhaps the results of Google searches should not be routinely dismissed simply because you are able to create search terms which turn up thousands of irrelevant hits? Is Taxi Driver not notable because this search turns up a bunch of articles about various cab drivers that have nothing to do with the film? DHowell (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I just need a better silly juxtaposition of words to show that the Google test doesn't necessarily mean you have a topic. (Plus, dude, major offhand references there.) Maybe Jesus break dancing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just because you can come up with search terms for non-topics (although, perhaps this is relevant to the topic of "Jesus break dancing"?) does not mean that all Google searches are non-topics. Google test doesn't mean you necessarily have a topic, but it doesn't necessarily mean you don't. Actually looking at the search results and refining your search terms is how you properly use Google. DHowell (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really great job of attacking the analogy while not addressing the point. A shotgun Google search full of junk has never established anything on its own. You're saying, "Well, maybe there are some good sources there!" I'm saying, "You'll need to point them out, because my digging got zero." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that I had seen no evidence that you did any digging at all, because my digging was actually turning up sources which I have pointed out; though now how I see you dismiss every source brought up I'm not sure more digging would be worth the effort, because I have no idea what kind of source you would accept to support this article. Perhaps if I knew what an AMIB-approved source that would support a fictional timeline would actually look like, I could refine my searching further. DHowell (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You digging has twice turned up articles that end with "Timeline taken from Star Wars Encyclopedia" and offer no commentary on the timeline at all. I offered a ton of questions that a good source might answer, or you could read WP:WAF which has been linked from this AFD at least a half-dozen times now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You now appear to be misrepresenting the facts in order to further your argument: The LA Times article cites the following sources: "Star Wars Episode I: Incredible Cross Sections," www.starwars.com, "Star Wars Behind the Magic," "Star Wars Episode I: Visual Dictionary," "Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace Movie Scrapbook," Lucasfilm Ltd., 20th Century Fox. None of them are the Star Wars Encyclopedia. The Lexington Herald-Leader offers the following commentary on the timeline: "This time line was compiled by fans, based on the movies, Lucasfilm-approved novels and comic books. There are still disputes about what is regarded as official text" and "There is controversy about the exact year Luke and Leia were born. The Star Wars Encyclopedia puts their birth at 18 BBY, but www.TheForce.net speculates 20 BBY." What newspapers decide to report and or "repeat from licensed fan-guides" is in itself a form of commentary, because they are deciding the information is "worthy of notice", i.e. notable. Finally, I have found some information about Lucas's role in the creation of the story chronology and how it is maintained by "continuity editors" in George Lucas: Interviews here. There are no doubt more sources to be find, but disimissing each one by one, without actually examining them, and reverting improvements to the article is not helpful, and strikes me as extreme bad faith. I'm not going to edit the article to improve it if you going to keep reverting me. DHowell (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm working on converting it into a decent article. I'm removing a lot of the cruft, and once I remove what's uncitable i'm going to find citations for the rest of it. I've got primary sources, as well as the Star Wars Encyclopedia and several other books that count as third-party, so claims of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SYNTH will be moot. I acknowledge that as it is, the article is a flaming pile of shit, but i'm going to work on it. also, it is a nominee for WikiProject Star Wars Collaboration of the Month. Firestorm ^Talk 01:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You working on it doesn't make it anymore noteable though, does it. Where are these sources you speak of? Dalejenkins | 02:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority are in my living room. Some are in my bedroom, but I try not to have too many there, else it clutters up the room. Firestorm ^Talk 02:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what sources are they? Please describe and if they are books, can you tell us what they are and how their usage as citations will aid the article with real-life contextual support. There's no point having this article if it's just a re-creation of some sources - this is currently the case and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, whilst assuming WP:FAITH, I feel that WP:ILIKEIT is being applied in your argument. Dalejenkins | 08:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Star Wars Encyclopedia, several of the "Essential Guide to X" books, and a whole lot of primary sources (books, movies, etc). I acknowledge that the article as it is now is a steaming pile of shit, and the article after I finish with it will be about 1/10th the size it is now. Most of the events listed are not notable in any way, and I plan on restricting it to the select few that are. Firestorm ^Talk 19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful way to organize information. Essentially a list. I doubt there will be difficulty sourcing almost everything to the canon, though I'm not sure how much does need to be included. But an entry in a table is not a full article, & does not need to be itself notable, or else every word in Wikipedia would need a full article attached. Some things are minor. . The only part that needs to be rescued from the charge of SYN is the calendar's arithmetic at the start. But perhaps it is standard, and I'm just ignorant. DGG (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is considered a standard. I know the official Star Wars Encyclopedia uses BBY/ABY for dates, and has something of a timeline as well. As for the rest of the information on length of standard days/years etc, I would have to look it up, as there may well be some valid SYNthesis concerns there. But the format for referring to years is generally accepted and (I think) official canon. Anythong I can't find a cite for and isn't notable will be getting thrown out. Firestorm ^Talk 04:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to show that it can provide real-world context on the subject in hand, otherwise it immediately fails WP:PLOT. Neither of you have addressed this in your arguments. Dalejenkins | 08:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOT PLOT refers to coverage of a topic, not a specific article " The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. " If our entire coverage of Stat Wars was limited to this article it would fail. But it isn't. This is essentially a navigation page to facilitate understand the material. The current wording is not really definitive--about 20 variations have been tried in the last few weeks. But the compromise consensus is that it applies to the coverage of works as a whole, not articles. There seems also to be consensus that extends even wider that the availability of references to a plot makes an article on it possible. (I dont really like that part myself, because references are a matter of chance for fiction), but i accept it as part of the compromise. Perhaps you disagree. Discuss it there, if you like, but I think the view will be speedily rejected as something we have already compromised on. I shouldn't have to explain the advantage of compromise of FICT related questions--we have no actual fundamental agreement, we won;t completely convince each other: we can either fight it out indefinitely instead of working on article, or we can compromise. Choose. DGG (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an in-universe navigation tool, when we already have lists that cover both in-universe and out-of-universe organizations, in a way that is overwhelmingly filled with in-universe factoids and not works. Some works (non-canon ones) aren't linked at all, whereas some are linked many, many times. This is the same problem as the now-deleted Buffyverse chronology. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A chronology of notable events, basically a list of them (as DGG says) is as notable as the events it lists. The article serves (or can serve!) for a overview of when the events in different notable media are taking place within the fictional chronology, thus allowing the reader an easier overview of those events. Citing an essay like WP:FICT as a deletion reason does not serve as a policy-based reason. OR, RS, V, SYNTH and SIZE issues can be fixed by editing and do not warrant deletion (as sources exist as pointed out above). Clearly does not violate WP:NOTWEBHOST (not used instead of a web host to store information). Per WP:BEFORE, the article can be improved, thus deleting is not the correct choice. Regards SoWhy 08:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a chronology of notable events" - what? A bunch of fictional events in a science fiction series are not notable I'm afraid, unless it can be proved that there is significant, non-trivial, third-party coverage. Dalejenkins | 09:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Events like those that happen in the main Star Wars movies have been covered by countless sources, analyzing real-world connections and suchlike (see Palpatine#Character_creation for examples). That some are not that notable is not the concern of AFD but of cleanup. Regards SoWhy 21:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is pretty much copied whole cloth out of Star Wars: The Essential Chronology (a licensed guide), with fan updates and annotations. It's duplicative, excessive plot summary that's already present in our hundreds-of-articles series on every single licensed book, comic, and whatnot. This borders on copyvio; we're the meat of a work of fiction (Essential Chronology). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wikipedia is not a fansite, and this is a fork from many of the other star wars articles, it does verge on a copyvio, and asided from the guide (non-independent) there are no reliable, indpendent sources that discuss this topic that would allow for the writing of something encyclopedic.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG, SoWhy & others.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is nothing but Star Wars' plot sourced solely from primary sources. I agree with AMIB in that this seems to border on being a copyright violation. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in its current form (or userfy); it is potentially notable, as I'm sure that at least one independent source has covered it. Find them, and recreate then :) Sceptre ^(talk) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This suggestion is contrary to our editing policy. We do not keep deleting articles until someone gets it right. We improve them in situ as this is the Wiki way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or transwiki - no sources exist that allow for an encyclopaedic article on this. I have some of the books I think this is copied from, I'll check and remove any copyvios I see. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - AfD is not cleanup. There is no immediate need to delete this (as one might need to in the case of a BLP), so what's the rush to delete? Again, AfD is not cleanup. - jc37 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes there is an immediate need to delete this - it fails WP:N and WP:PLOT. Dalejenkins | 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, no. Even if they were both applicable in this case (which is currently under discussion on this very page), neither of those in and of themselves are a valid reason to immediately delete this. - jc37 23:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hundreds of sources demonstrate the falsity of the nomination's claim that this is not notable. The rest is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshine. There is only one source from that list that comments on the chronology of Star Wars itself rather than on Star Wars as a whole, and this book has been previously discussed - it is not reliable as it is a primary source and, as the article only sources this one document, we are breaking copyvio. Dalejenkins | 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have proof that the article is in violation of somebody's copyright? And if so, that there is some barrier that prevents you from simply removing the offended sections? Because if not, then its not a valid reason to delete. If it actually is copyvio, then after this closes i'm going to recreate it in a non-infringing way. Firestorm ^Talk 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from the obvious incivility, I don't understand User:Dalejenkins' point. For example, this source tells us how the chronology and continuity of the Star Wars universe is maintained. Material of this sort is an excellent basis for this topic whose notability is evident. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete'- so someone reads books, tries to put an order to things, finds 1 published chronology, MAKES UP a dating scheme and tada... we have an article. Seems like pure WP:OR. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 23:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dating system is not made up; several official sources such as the Star Wars Encyclopedia use BBY/ABY for dates. Firestorm ^Talk 02:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- BBY seems to be the standard way to chronoligize Star Wars stuff[1]. Here's an LA Times article that has quite a bit of good info. Another source.[2] The article needs a lot work to avoid more AfDs, although it's pretty clear to me that a viable article can be made here. I recommend adding some out of universe info, like the years of films and whatnot. Also, should probably remove the redlinks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  But what stuff are we organizing? We have BBY-organized lists of works: List of Star Wars books. This is a BBY-organized list of plotpoints, lacking context to attach them to any works. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  (smile) Sofixit, and add the primary sources : ) - jc37 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To what end? To make an in-universe version of a list we already have in out-of-universe form? If I were going to fix it, I'd make it into List of Star Wars books, but we already have that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That article covers books. This one covers important storylines from books, movies, comics, video games, G-canon and other canonical sources. Thescope is completely seaprate. Firestorm ^Talk 02:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And there's a list for each of those, as well. Organized in in-universe chronological fashion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  All right, I'll bite... What articles are you suggesting that this page duplicates? (Not that I necessarily agree that partial duplication is a "bad thing".) - jc37 05:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It duplicates those lists as a navigation tool. It duplicates the many, many, many articles summarizing the plot of each of those films, books, games, comics, etc. as content. Arranging the same content infinitely in different ways is not good encyclopedia writing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, so you're saying that it collates primary source material, and groups the information in a different way, and that that isn't "good encyclopedic writing"? I might suggest that a geneological table of greek mythology might do the same thing. Yet I would suggest that such a table would be incredibly good for an encyclopedia, and indeed, presenting the information this way would help aid understanding, even though the same information may be presented in each related article. If chronologies weren't helpful, people wouldn't create them. And incidentally, The Lord of the Rings has a chronology at the end simply because so many of his readers requested it of him. (Yes, I can source it, but no, I really don't want to go find the book it's in.)

  Chronologies are encyclopedic, and exist in encyclopedias.

  So essentially, this isn't so much directly duplicative, but rather illustrative.

  I'm still not seeing the issue. I know you know I ask this with respect and deference: What's the problem besides IDONTLIKEIT? - jc37 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The genealogy of Greek myth (which would not be clear-cut) would be an appropriate encyclopedic topic because many, many reliable sources independent of the ancient Greeks have seen fit to comment on it. Likewise LOTR. Here, we have no such sources. This is closer to the Buffyverse and MGS timelines I noted above, which have been deleted exactly because nobody else has ever felt the need to comment in a reliable source about the chronology of that fictional world.

  I love Star Wars. Love it. I have been a Star Wars nerd for a very long time now. But this doesn't have multiple substantial reliable sources independent of the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I know you're a fan of Star Wars. That's not what I meant. I was being a bit more general than that. (PLOT, and such.)

  That said, your main concern is that no one has discussed the chronology of Star Wars? (Pardon my while I pick my jaw up off the floor.)

  Just off the top of my head, I can recall articles which discuss the chronologies (including the "original" ones which included Mace Windu and/or Anakin Starkiller). Discussion and comparisons to mythology, and Campbell's the Power of Myth.

  And that aside, there was quite a bit of discussion when the first prequel came out.

  (And I seem to recall discussions about where the Ewok films (or the Holiday Special) fall in the "chronology" of the series.)

  So, the chronology has been discussed.

  But all of that aside, why should it be required to be discussed? A chronology is merely a presentation of information. Why should we show bias as to what "form" the information is presented? WP:LIST would seem to suggest that such pages are allowable. And honestly, I'm still not seeing a reason why simple facts from a primary source cannot be collated for presentation in whatever way may best benefit the reader. And I highly doubt that you can assert that a chronology of in-universe information doesn't help a reader. Otherwise, such chronologies would never be published (supply and demand, and all that). - jc37 17:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that you are shocked that I might suggest that nobody has discussed the chronology of Star Wars means that you've lost perspective here. No sources other than self-publishing Star Wars fans and Lucasfilm have seen fit to comment. Since those aren't reliable sources independent of the subject, Wikipedia should also not comment. You're making a lot of "It's important to Star Wars fans!]] arguments here, but notability is not importance.

  Simple facts from primary sources are very different from collating every event that happens or is referred to or is implied in a licensed work, filtering out contradictions, retconning anything that doesn't fit, and incorporating the whole into a coherent timeline. There's a ton of C-canon stuff that has been shuffled and reshuffled and reshuffled, but none of that work shows here because there are no good sources documenting those retcons. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  When exactly did George Lucas take over the Los Angeles Times, who has seen fit to discuss the chronology of Star Wars? Also, "licensed" does not equal "not independent". Is an "authorized biography" not allowable as a reliable source for an article on a person? For that matter, if an autobiography contains the vast majority of the information for a clearly notable person, are we not allowed to use that source? Can we not use Time as a source for information about Warner Bros., because they are owned by the same parent company? Furthermore, Any "retconning" that might exist in this article that isn't based on actual sources can be removed, and it would still leave a lot of decent information. Unresolvable contradictions should simply be described, rather than explained or filtered (if there is no source explaining the contradiction, and no blatantly obvious explanation or mistake), as we do in any other article where conflicting facts appear in reliable sources (List of High Kings of Ireland, for example). DHowell (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Read that article. It's an excerpt of the same licensed guides we're looking at here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  An excerpt COVERED IN A RELIABLE SOURCE! What are you expecting, the L.A. Times editorial staff to travel to Corsucant to do independent research of the subject? We couldn't have any coverage of fictional topics under your requirements, because all information about fictional topics ultimately derives from the fictional works, or from their creators. We could have 10,000 independent reliable sources covering this subject, and you'd still say it's not notable. Sheesh. DHowell (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That is the essential fallacy of in-universe thinking. No, I don't expect them to go to a fictional world to observe and report. I expect them to report on the Star Wars timeline in the real world. What process went into creating this timeline? How has it evolved? How has it been received by fans? How does the management of a timeline affect the franchise as a whole?

  You just linked a transcript of an infographic in the LA Times entertainment magazine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Silly me, I thought we were talking about notability, now you are talking about real-world details? There are sources for that too, but of course you'll dismiss them because they are not independent. (Again, where would this information come from if not ultimately from the creators of the fictional works?) That's the fallacy of conflating WP:N with WP:NOT#PLOT; while notability requires independent coverage, and the plot policy requires real-world coverage, no policy or guideline requires "independent real-world coverage". To suggest so is to conduct an original synthesis of Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to advance your position. And what does the format of the information have to do with anything? DHowell (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Excerpting a timeline from a Lucasfilm publication is not significant coverage.

  Significant coverage is commentary. I offered a number of questions a source that actually said something about this timeline might answer. Entertainment sections of newspapers excerpting Lucasfilm publications doesn't answer any of these questions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Where in WP:N does it say that "Significant coverage is commentary"? Commentary is coverage, but not all coverage is commentary. Futhermore, if reliable sources aren't answering the questions you want answered, perhaps it means that your ideas on what this article should cover is not notable, not that the subject itself is not notable. As a tertiary source, we are "supposed" to be covering subjects in the manner of secondary reliable sources, and if all they do is excerpt primary sources, then there's no good reason why we shouldn't do the same, other than to satisfy your personal opinions about what Wikipedia shouldn't cover. Finally, there is no policy or guideline that says "entertainment sections" are any less reliable then any other section of the newspaper. DHowell (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is going in circles. There's nothing you can say in this article that isn't taken directly from a Lucasfilm timeline or excerpts of same. If you think it's acceptable to just duplicate their timeline, considering nobody has ever said anything about the timeline, then you're just wrong. If you have a decent source that says something about the timeline, I'm all ears, because I think that the topic is interesting, but reprinting The Star Wars Essential Chronology is not an encyclopedia article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And can I just cherp in here and add that, as a member of the Star Wars WikiProject, jc37 is more likely to be applying WP:ILIKEIT than we are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just an observation ;), Dalejenkins | 11:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your observation, but I think it's a dismissable observation since I'm using arguments based upon policy and current practice (as opposed to statements like "fancruft" and a those who have a "bias" against anything plot-related - who, by the way, could probably do with a re-read of WP:NOT#PLOT, and for that matter the ongoing discussions there). - jc37 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Such a massive series, covering so many books, movies, animated series, merchandise, and having such a vast cultural influence, is notable enough to have side articles about its various aspects. The list helps organize all the series, and is thus quite helpful to those seeking information about it. Dream Focus 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep <<EC>> per many fine arguments above. DGG, Colonel Warden, et al. It really does not fail notability. Primary sources can be used when trustworthy for factual content, they are not required in this instance to establish notability. If there are problems with the article, they can be amenable to editing, and given the household name status of the subject of Star Wars, notability is beyond question. Real world significance is important, but we do not need to show the real world significance of the chronology per se, just of Star Wars as a whole. This article becomes an extension of what in a paper encyclopedia would be a huge article on Star Wars. It complements and expands on the subject, and I think this is an important example of giving the world free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That is, after all, what we are doing. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, add Dream Focus to my "per" above. Said it better than I did. Dlohcierekim 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fancrap listing of plot elements and events. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:IDONTLIKEIT at its clearest : ) - jc37 06:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless you read past the first word. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned above jc37, you are a member of the WikiProject for Star Wars, so it's more than likely that you are applying WP:ILIKEIT and holding a bias that others. Dalejenkins | 11:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's mentioned above, it doesn't need to be repeated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably, so for me at least, I'll just point to my response above. - jc37 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Many of us join projects we have some doubts about to watch what's going on. I do. A good number of the eds. who oppose these articles are in fact fans of the subjects involved--it is not necessarily about not being interested in the fiction itself. DGG (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I like the content just fine, but it's thoroughly inappropriate for Wikipedia as it's a crufty mess of plot and in-universe details. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  ("Cruft" falls under IDONTLIKEIT, but that aside, it seems that WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC would seem to apply as well.)

  Anyway, the main problem with the argument is that it's an arbitrary, subjective opinion. At what point do we place the dividing line between what is "crufty fan-squee trivia", and encyclopedic material? And who makes that choice? I hope you're not suggesting that it's us performing WP:OR to make that determination... - jc37 17:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  My interpretation is that the article fails at the minimum WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:LISTCRUFT. I acknowledge that said interpretation is only my opinion, but what else could it possibly be? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What else indeed : ) - jc37 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  :o) Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Official Star Wars web site and a printed book using the Star Wars logo and name (= got the 'seal of approval' by George Lucas) are as good as a reliable source as it gets for this stuff. It's like using "God" as the source for the "Ten Commandments", including his address for verification. Okay, "god" in this case would be Mr. Lucas, which does not mean that he is a real god in a religious point of view sense, although hard core fans of the Star Wars universe would probably disagree with me on that one :). --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that Ten Commandments and Bible have many sources cited, and not a one of them is the Almighty or His various prophets. Now let us never speak of this analogy again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, the Ten Commandments article contains several citations to Exodus and Deuteronomy, considered by believers to be written by a somewhat important prophet. DHowell (talk)

• Weak delete. Reluctantly convinced by some of A Man In Black's comments above that there probably isn't enough outside commentary on the chronology, though I fully admit that if this article wasn't such a mess I might've been inclined to argue usefulness to readers if nothing else. The fact that it's probably mostly a clumsy transwiki from wookieepedia:Timeline of galactic history doesn't help either. BryanG (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The chronology of the Star Wars series has been covered in clearly independent and reliable sources (such as the Los Angeles Times article cited above). Furthermore, books written by authors not involved in the creation of the original stories, and published by major publishing companies—even though licensed and authorized by the creators, developers, and publishers of the original works—ought to be considered independent for the purposes of notability and verifiability. Finally, compiling facts in ways that aid navigation for the reader is one of the main purposes of lists, and should in no way be considered original research unless it advances a contentious position. DHowell (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the article itself, though, it is a horrible mess, and I can see why some might want it gone. Before you even get to the timeline, it contradicts itself and the Coruscant article about the number of hours in a day, and makes some unsourced claims about the ordering of months in the year. And a large amount of information in the timeline doesn't even cite a fictional source which would allow anyone to verify. But this is a notable topic, and the article needs major cleanup, not deletion. DHowell (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Really. What factual claims are you going to get from this? An excerpt of a licensed guide isn't coverage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Then I'd say you have a very different definition of "coverage" than the rest of the speakers of the English language. The factual claims I'm getting from this are factual claims about when certain fictional events took place within a fictional timeline. These are facts about fiction, independently sourced, and as such are things we ought to be including in a paperless encyclopedia. I've already used this source to add citations to a few of these events (if I have time I'll add more), and it has led me to further sources and information about the subject. The fact that you are somehow unable to derive any useful information from these sources should not prevent the rest of us from doing so. DHowell (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You linked to a transcript of an infographic from the entertainment magazine insert of a newspaper. You can shout LA TIMES! to the rooftops but it's just repeating some press material from Lucasfilm. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You can shout "infographic" and "entertainment magazine insert" to the rooftops but it doesn't make the newspaper any less reliable. And page "F-4" is from the actual entertainment section, not a so-called "magazine insert". DHowell (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not terribly concerned with convincing you, but anyone who'd care to look will see that it's clear that it's a transcript of a graphical excerpt of a Lucasfilm publication. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The policy that I feel most strongly addresses this subject is WP:NOT#PLOT. There also seems to be a great deal of WP:OR and it's dangerously close to a copyvio. OlYeller^Talktome 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  how can something fail both OR and copyvio? And whatever its merits, it does not fail NOT PLOT. I quote "The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary." "The coverage" is the wording, not "every article about it" DGG (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  By repeating an original theory only advanced by its self-publisher. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - obvious synthesis and original research from primary sources. We don't do these here. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Update My research has now turned up this, which in turn cites another newspaper source, the Lexington Herald Leader; the original article can be found here. This topic now clearly passes the "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject" threshhold. I've cited both the LA Times and this source in the article for "key dates". DHowell (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither of those links offer any commentary or content. They just offer two (mostly conflicting) timelines, both cited to whatever the latest Lucasfilm-licensed fan guide was. "Here's two timelines in the entertainment sections of newspapers, now let's give 100K of plot summary that doesn't resemble those references at all" isn't good referencing. What content other than "So-and-so did this in such-and-such year" do you plan to put in this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So you are reverting information from independent reliable sources, because they conflict with other primary sources, sources you claim are unsuitable to use in this article, and don't "comment" on the sources? Except in their editorial section, newspapers aren't supposed to "comment", they are supposed to report. And they report information from primary sources. That is what newspapers do. DHowell (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, original research. Content has little to no real-world notability. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Synthesis from primary sources. Indiscriminate inclusion of trivial events, people, places, etc. The wealth of redlinks (discounting dates) indicates that much this context-less amalgamation of plot detail and trivia is better suited to Wookieepedia. --EEMIV (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a copyvio. We are quite clearly in breach of WP:NFC. Specifically:

2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

3.

1. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
2. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

It doesn't get much simpler than that. Hiding T 12:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: First, I'm not sure how that applies here. (I can only guess atm.) Would you explain? And also, I'm sure I missed it somewhere, but would you please link to the copy in File namespace?

I strongly support Chronologies (for the various reasons noted above). However, if we're in violation of NFC, I'll likely switch to delete on those grounds. - jc37 20:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cut and paste as properly as I'd like. The first mistakle a lot of people make is in assuming that non-free applies only to images. It actually applies to all non-free content. A plot is non-free content. That's how it applies. We're basically infringing upon the commercial opportunities a copyright holder has in exploiting their work to produce such a chronology and sell it. We're giving it away for free, basically. Now, we can use non-free content minimally, so we can use points within the chronology in relevant articles, but groupoing it together in one article to show the timeline is not minimal usage. So you can say in an article on the character Harry Potter that he got a scar on his head at this point, that's minimal usage. The minimal extent is only to use as much of the plot as is needed to illustrate or facilitate understanding for a reader. And finally, non-free content must be encyclopedic and meet content standards. So it needs to be in keeping with the manual of style, and with Wikipedia:Non-free content, which notes that it is illegal (among other things) to reproduce or make derivative works of copyrighted works without legal justification. The key point here is derivative works, which are defined as being an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work. The only legal justification we have for making derivitaive works is that of fair use, but that involves demonstrating transformation. We fail here somewhat because what we have created isn't new. Now it can be argued that WIkipedia might possibly get away with publishing this stuff, but that's not the point. The point is that we have commercial reusers, so it isn't enough that we can get away with it. On Wikipedia, our goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as any content granting the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. So that's the basis for my thinking. Hiding T 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on the paste (especially since we're both responding in two separate discussions).

The key sentence seems to be: "...but groupoing it together in one article to show the timeline is not minimal usage." - Are we certain that this is the case? I mean no slight whatsoever, but rather want to get to the heart of this. Because what you're saying would then seem to apply to geneological tables (family trees) as well as quite a few other lists. So it sounds like we really need to know if this is legally accurate (and since IANAL, and sincerely don't know, but would like to find out). So, next stop User talk:Mike Godwin? - jc37 02:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense would it be like a family tree? You can't copyright a family tree, since it is material within the public domain. Showing the timeline is not minimal usage to my mind, because the point of the article is to show the timeline, not to discuss the impact of the work. Our whole usage of copyright material rests upon a fair use defense, which means we have to offer critical commentary and use copyrighted material when it is vital to the points being discussed. But yes, this has applied to lists in the past, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FHM lists. Also see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4. I don't think this article is at all workable, I think given this chronology has been published a couple of times we're basically infringing copyright by reproducing it here. Hiding T 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stricken, not so sure of my ground now, actually. I've left a few remarks, but given points made at WT:NOT, I've made a u-turn. I think it probably is a matter for teh foundation. I reckon we should probably just avoid copyright paranoia and let the board take the lead on this issue. They'll be able to source better opinions than mine. Hiding T 13:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been asked to expand on this, so I will. First point is that WP:NFCC specifically states it applies only to "copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files", so it does not extend to text as I mistakenly assert above. The second point is that the level to which copyright law covers specific um, "fictional facts", is unclear. Plot itself is not subject to copyright, but creative expression is. Basically, the only place that will ever determine whether we breach copyright or not is a court of law, and ultimately it is therefore a call for the board to make rather than for me to make. The board reserve the right to take down any material which they do not believe would be defended in court using fair use defense criteria, so I think they have to take the lead on on summarising and infringing fictional works which are subject to copyright. I retract my assertions as flawed and perhaps subject to copyright paranoia. Hiding T 15:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dlabtot (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on OR and expansion of my rationale for keep. NO OR exists to keep people from publishing their theses here in the guise of an article. This not the case here. The creators do not compile and synthesize information to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly in the sources. They do not cite themselves. This is not OR, the use of primary sources does not make it such. "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Once again, we are building a storehouse off all human knowledge. Dlohcierekim 14:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article written based one one single primary source, with lots of conjecture based on other primary sources (and some random comments in secondary sources that are chiefly about other things). It's two different kinds of OR (Lucasfilm's own theory of how their work fits together, and lots of fans' little theories), but both are inappropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. "I don't like it" is nota reason to delete an article! Yes, the article is shoddy; yes, it lacks WP:RS and, yes, it is overly detailed and immersed in the lightsaber wielding world of The Force. However, the cultural significance of this iconic series makes it notable! everyone has heard of star wars- whether they like it or not. After all, 390,127 people declared themselves "Jedi" in the British 2001 census. The article could be a perfectly valid encyclopaedic entry if some of the more intricate detail were removed and the majority of the events on the list were links to existing articles or those of significance in the series. HJ Mitchell (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But nobody has put Star Wars up for deletion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have those lists, though. We have lists of Star Wars works by inuniverse chronology. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • but do we have an article listing every significant event of the series in chronological order? That's what this is and, if refined, could simply be a timeline and a collection of links to the most important events in the Star Wars. HJ Mitchell (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is it proper for an editor to revert, and revert again, improvements to the article using independent reliable source citations, in an article which that editor is arguing to delete? DHowell (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  He appears to have explained his reverts well enough in the edit summaries. I think it's improper for you to use such sources as well. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG and because it seems to wildly surpase any and all sourcing guidelines. Yes, the best material is going to come from secondary sources that aren't independent, but there are plenty of books, articles and reviews to build something like this without those non-independent sources if needed. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur- the subject would be difficult to write about if it weren't so extensively referenced in primary sources. HJ Mitchell (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Clean it up. Every entry is going to need citing to the primary source itself. Conflicts within the timeline have to be shown, and only explained by citing reliable secondary sourcing. Hiding T 09:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What reliable secondary sources would those be? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't recall saying there were any. If I'm honest, I think this is a copyright violation. But since I am not a judge, I can't rule that, and it is only a judge who can, not a lawyer or anyone else. If I were to back my judgemenbt, I'd say delete, per my extensive arguing up above, but as people have pointed out, that's not supported by policy or guidance or consensus. It's just supported by my personal morality on what's right. I think this article violates a number of fundamental points about what we're supposed to do here, from breaching copyright to breaching original research to breaching neutral point of view and breaching ideas we had against being used for marketing purposes. However, all the information is verifiable, it is of use to readers and it isn't false. There's no consensus here that this article or articles like it are a bad thing. So the article must, if kept, be edited in line with our policies. Which means every entry needs a cite, and every conflict within the timeline is listed, and only explained if a reliable secondary source can be cited. If there are none, we don't explain the conflicts. I donl;t believe there are secondary sources, but I'm prepared to be wrong. Do you think there's a consensus to delete? I don't, I don;t think there is even if you fall back on policy, because you'd be relying on the most contentious parts of policy, and overlooking WP:CONSENSUS. I'm beginning to think the only way forward is to let these articles grow and grow until someone files suit. Then we'll get a consensus. Hiding T 11:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And to go further, attempts to erase conflicts are POV pushing and original research. If one source states a and a later source states b, because both these facts are fictional, b cannot be discarded in favor of a. We have to present them both and state, descriptively per WP:V as these are primary source, that the two sources conflict. We don't get to streamline the chronology, we don't get to decide one source is "truer" than another, we don't get to take a point of view. Since this article is built on primary source, it must only make uncontentious descriptions. Anyone contending that describing the fact that primary source 1 conflicts with primary source 2 is original research misunderstands what a description is. But like I say, I think this should be deleted for relying mainly on primary source. There's no two ways about that. All the sources are fiction, and are therefore primary source. Star Wars: The New Essential Chronology even notes in its introduction that it is a work of fiction. But I'm quite prepared to play long term. I am reasonably sure that in 100 years time this article will not generate as much controversy, and maybe, it would have been quietly prodded at some point between then and now. Hiding T 12:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If it's a copyvio, frankly, then George Lucas or the applicable authour should come up with some proof. If it's blatant, then I'd agree with Hiding, but, to date, nobody has come up with a book or URL from which this material has supposedly been copied. I stand by my position that, with a little tidying up and some research as to the contradictions, this would be a perfectly good article and an authoritative source for researching the subject. HJ Mitchell (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be amazed to see this article become a perfectly good article and an authorative source and remain within the law. I'm also intrigued by the idea that an article on Wikipedia should be an authoratoive source. Out of curiousity, what do you understand by the terms "derivative work" and "ability to exploit"? Hiding T 19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Clean up as necessary, don't destroy information. Keep per precedent of chronologies of other bestselling works of fiction such as Timeline_of_Arda. Jwray (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - essentially a modified, extended plot summary, almost entirely composed of either original research or material lifted straight from primary sources. I don't believe this topic has the real-world notability required to justify an article in its own right. Robofish (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. There's a distinction between a plot summary and a chronology, albeit a blurry one, and this is the latter. Rather than explaining every event ever to happen in Star Wars (it'd be 10 times the size if it did), it summarises some of the most important events and links to their respective articles. It could be a decent navigation and reference source. It just needs consolidating and cleaning up. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is no distinction. You are summarising fiction. In this instance the fictional work being summarised is Star Wars: The New Essential Chronology, and the plot of the work centres on events within a galaxy over a timeframe. If you just want a navigation aid, use a template. if you want to be an encyclopedic reference source, go summarise secondary sources, oh wait, we don't have any, do we? Hiding T 19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're not going to find any great quantity of WP:RS but that's not the point. There is sufficient coverage in quasi- independent sources of the core in many publications, in my opinion, to warrant it's inclusion. A lot of the rest of it is interesting and chronologises (try pronouncing that- if it's even a word!) material documented elsewhere on wikipedia. Granted, what's left after that is little more than utter tosh that no1 is seriously going to be looking up and seriously overcomplicates the article and should be removed, but the article itself should stay. HJ Mitchell (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • We haven't even got quasi-independent sources. All we've got are works of fiction, which are primary sources and somewhat questionable. That's what the debate is about. Hiding T 08:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article gives useful information that helps one undertsand terminology used in other Wikipedia articles, mostly about Stars Wars. Sf46 (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2009 (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.