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 redirect to Star Fleet Universe. This was a difficult AfD to close. First, let me note that the claim that the article was original research does not hold water since the article does not make any new synthesis from the source material (aside from a few sentences in the introduction that may be problematic). Second, the claim that there is a copyright problem is also not persuasive. While some sentences are very similar to that of the source material to the point where it might be considered plagiarism in an academic setting, the vast majority of the article appears to be substantially paraphrased to the point where it is not an issue. However, overall there is no reason to consider this notable. We have no reliable secondary sources about the matter and as it stands fails WP:FICT. Furthermore, this isn't even from the main Star Trek universe but from a side-universe constructed for a series of games. Notability is not generally inherited and it is certainly not inherited from things that are only barely notable themselves. The main reason is this not a decision of delete is that some of the material might make sense as being incorporated into the main Star Fleet Universe article and leaving a redirect makes it easier for the material be used there or at some other project. JoshuaZ 00:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Fleet Universe timeline[edit]

This history of the future is, of course, unfinished, but also non-notable and just too in universe to be classed as anything other than original research based on original research. --Gavin Collins 16:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not original research but is based upon the published sources which the article cites. Colonel Warden 16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 16:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the History section of the Star Fleet Universe article, with some appropriate paring down/cleaning up/sourcing. As with all the other articles, this isn't original research, as it's information from the books. Pinball22 17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Per Colonel Warden, this is not original research. Rray 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No citations to independent secondary sources - that means it's original research, folks. MarkBul 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. It may mean that it's not notable by our standards, since primary sources don't count for notability, but use of primary sources is not original research, as long as they're used in a way that doesn't involve synthesis or interpretation. Pinball22 18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Star Fleet Universe as above. Web Warlock 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this article to make sure that the main SFU article to keep it from gaining an ungainly amount of weight in the history section (that is, a preemptive content fork). Merging any significant portion into the article would create the situation I was trying to avoid.

Non-notable - that is more a question of is SFU notable enough for this content fork. Recent AfDs seem to show that SFU is notable enough for a main article and a few off-branches.

OR - This page is derived from fictional works. It therefore proceeds from original sources, but does not consist of original thought, promote a point of view, nor comprise of new syntheses of that material.

Some previous AfDs of Fictional timeline articles, for those interested:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EverQuest_timeline - No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragonlance_timeline - Keep
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dates_in_Harry_Potter (1st) - Delete
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dates_in_Harry_Potter_(second_nomination) - Keep
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Back_to_the_Future_timeline - Keep

Please note that (other than the 1st HP nom) AfDs that resulted in a Delete are not listed here, as my Wiki-fu isn't up to finding them. --Rindis 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some delete outcomes (my Google search string was "timeline site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia:articles_for_deletion):

I'm inclined to allow for timelines, myself (but not timeline comparisons). But there's big inconsistency in how these votes go. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. — RJH (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COPYVIO. Follow the link to the site that begins "THE STAR FLEET UNIVERSE TIMELINE Copyright (c) 1985-2007 Amarillo Design Bureau, Inc. Revised 12 April 2007". Changing a few words here or there doesn't make it less of a violation. People pay the U.S. Copyright office good money for that "c" with the circle in it. Mandsford 20:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a copyvio. Have you written a research paper? One takes info from sources (almost always copy written) and uses it to write about the subject (of course changing info so its not a direct copy and paste). From WP:copyvio "almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material" Viperix 02:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. Don't be naive. I had to go to school before there were word processors, so we couldn't do the "cut-paste-alter" maneuver, and it was easier to put something in your own words than to copy it verbatim and change a little here and there. For example "Y21 The Federation encounters the Orions, a smaller star-faring culture on their border. The Orions quickly set up trade relations." This is brilliantly rearranged to "Y21 The Federation encounters the Orions. Trade relations are quickly established." We all "link" to copyrighted material, but we don't all copy and pass an alteration off as our own work. Big difference between the two. Mandsford 18:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, please don't make assumptions, I had to go to school before computers as well. The example you give would hold up as not a copyvio. Especially since there is not that much info in the first place, the ways to re-write that sentence are limited. Also, Naive would be thinking copy write infringement didn't happen when there was not computers. Now days they have computer programs that check for that. Viperix 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing (that I thought of later, silly me) is that there's a difference between republishing copyrighted material in a research paper for class, and doing the same thing in an article on Wikipedia. For schoolwork, it's simply laziness. On Wikipedia, it's something that the service wishes to be avoided. Mandsford 23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:N and WP:V, and WP:HEY. A ~~very notable work of fiction, highly documented with many reference sources available.~~ A notable fictional game that has sources available, The article needs improvement and better footnotes, but it easily meets Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion and will certainly be improved over time. --Parsifal _Hello 08:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I'm striking out my entire comment because on further review I realized I don't have time to do the needed research, so I withdraw my !vote rather than enter an arbitrary opinion. --Parsifal _Hello 18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this debate echoes the guideline WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL which features the specific Star Trek example. Note that there is a similar situation here: there already exists an article called Chronological list of Star Trek stories based on the television and film series, from which it draws its primary sources. However, there is no rationale for keeping Star Fleet Universe timeline, as the timeline was made up for the game, and as such, belongs at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome.--Gavin Collins 09:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, Star Fleet Universe and Star Trek are not the same thing. One is inspired by the other but they are not equal. Web Warlock 10:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am glad we agree on this point. --Gavin Collins 11:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But you don't agree... Gavin, you're still totally missing the point. Yes, the timeline was made up for the game. But that doesn't mean it's made up or original research for the purposes of the Wikipedia, since this article is about the game, which, as a long-running setting of commercially-released products, is a valid topic in and of itself. Does that make sense? We've been arguing this particular point for weeks, and I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer. Pinball22 13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I would have to disagree with you there. The point is that that Chronological list of Star Trek stories has got a large body of primary and secondary sources for most of the individual dates, whereas the Star Fleet Universe timeline came from a PDF of dates created for the one instance of this game. I would suggest that one primary source (which possibly make this article a copyright violation - see above) is insufficient to establish notabiliy.I would even go further and say that this PDF does not count as a primary source for this article at all; I would say this is WP:OR once removed. --Gavin Collins 14:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question of notability is a separate one from the question of whether this is original research. No, a single primary source is probably not sufficient to establish notability. But that still doesn't mean it's original research: obviously, the material in the article came from that primary source, and thus is not original research. Saying that the PDF that's referenced doesn't count as a primary source makes no sense -- it was created by the publisher of the Star Fleet Universe games, so why wouldn't it be a perfectly reasonable primary source for an article about those games? You keep trying to call the articles original research based on the fact that the universe depicted in them is not the same one as that of the Star Trek TV shows/movies. But that doesn't make sense, since these aren't articles about the Star Trek universe, they're articles about the Star Fleet Universe, which isn't something being made up for the Wikipedia, as your arguments seem to indicate that you believe, but rather something that has been created by a game company for the series of games that these articles are about. Pinball22 14:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main Star Fleet Universe article RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main SFU article without prejudice for later re-splitting if size of section warrants it. SFU as a whole is notable, not least because of the range of notable products relating to it. If timeline(s) get too large to fit handily into the main article for a topic, it's worth splitting them for this consideration only, as is a common practice. Content forks for size don't require independent notability. SamBC(talk) 15:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the articles in question? I would consider the current timeline article way to big to merge into the main article as is. If you are thinking that the current content needs to be trimmed down, feel free to give suggestions, I'm going to need them if this goes to 'merge'. --Rindis 17:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the only aspect in which the current article is "too long" to merge is that it might end up a little disproportionate. The main article is by no means too long to accept that much more material. I would suggest consulting on the talk page for the main article to see if there is consensus in either direction (should/shouldn't be forked). I personally think that the verdict of this AfD ought to be "keep or merge based on consensus at main article talk page" along these lines. SamBC(talk) 17:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This raises an important point about the potential for this article to be extended or amended over and over. If, say, the existing timeline is expanded, or a new timeline is written for a new edition of SFU, this article could run and run. The answer must be that it is unverifiable speculation: that is original research by the way. --Gavin Collins 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if new published material alters the actual information that the article tries to provide, then the article will be altered. What it currently contains is all justified by current published material, so there's no WP:CRYSTAL-ball gazing going on. The article doesn't contain speculation as to how the timeline is going to develop with new source material. The timeline doesn't contain analytical (etc) material, so primary sources are sufficient and don't mean that there's any OR. I'm slightly confused by these allegations. SamBC(talk) 17:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this timeline is extended by a further, say by 1,000 years, then at some point you would have to agree its a pointless article. --Gavin Collins 18:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense... why should we stop having an article just because it's going to grow in the future? Many articles are going to grow and change in the future as new things happen to their subjects; that doesn't mean we shouldn't have articles about what they're currently like. Pinball22 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they are sourced from independent sources. This is just original research, one step removed. --Gavin Collins 21:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to get into semantics, but the important point of "original research" is the "original" part, and if it's one step removed, it can't really be "original". SamBC(talk) 21:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources. This is all sourced to primary sources (which seems to be role-playing game manuals). Articles must be able to stand on thier own, this one does not. --Phirazo 17:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of reliable third party sources. Burntsauce 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, is the argument of the delete !votes (from Phirazo and Burntsauce) based on notability? First-party and/or primary sources are a perfectly good source of direct "factual" (ie non-analytical) content, but they don't establish notability. If so, I would point out that, as a content fork for size concerns, notability is not an issue for this article provided that the article it is spun off from is appropriate under notability. SamBC(talk) 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - First off, notability is not inherited. Secondly, any article on fiction that does not have secondary sourcing will inevitability be a plot summary, since this is all that can be derived from primary sources without being original research. --Phirazo 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your second statement is very far off from the truth. Suggesting that you can only summarize the plot with primary sources is irresponsible, inane, and senseless. From WP:OR regarding Primary sources, "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." Also from WP:OR "Examples of primary sources include... ...scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Finally also from WP:OR Secondary sources are only required when interpretation of the primary source was required. Viperix 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - All that can "collected and organized" is the plot of a role playing game. If this article does not have secondary sources, it fails WP:NOT#PLOT, which requires "real-world context and sourced analysis". In the case of articles on fiction, "interpretation of the primary source" is required. --Phirazo 00:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Not true, Watch the matrix. Can you collect the fact that Neo wears sun glasses in a particular scene? Yes. Does it require interpretation? No. Could it be added to WP? Yes. Another example this time using another role playing game. Look at D&D Can you collect from the primary source that a certain dragon is red? Yes. Does it require interpretation? No. Could it be added to WP? Yes. You see? One can collect and organize more than just the plot using primary sources and without interpretation. The problem which I have stated before is that WP editors don't understand OR is supposed to block original thought or idea's, not source based research from a primary source.Viperix 06:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        None of the examples you give are "real-world context and sourced analysis", but are instead plot points and trivia. (I would argue whether or not Neo is wearing sunglasses in a particular scene of "The Matrix" can not be added to WP, since it is the worst kind of fancruft and trivia.) How can you give real-world context and sourced analysis in the absence of secondary sources without it being OR? --Phirazo 01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your seem to be missing my point, It is sourced, and if content passes all the other WP:THISORTHAT rules it would be addable. All the examples are "sourced based research". For example say the glasses did fit with notability for whatever reason. There would inevitably be sources that proved notability, then you could add information about the glasses directly from the movie. In the context of this discussion, we know the game is notable, if the time line is notable, then one can use primary sources for reference. My whole point above was that no, interpretation is not always required for fiction.Viperix 11:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that the argument is that any coverage of fiction without interpretation and analysis can only be a plot summary. I'm not actually sure that I agree with it in all cases, but your arguments don't really counter it. My main problem with it in this case is that a fictional history isn't really a "plot". Yes, it's a summary, but it's not a summary of a plot, it's a summary of fictional history. That's what I think, anyway... SamBC(talk) 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A plot "is the rendering and ordering of the events and actions of a story" (from Plot (narrative)). I'd say a fictional history is a plot. --Phirazo 16:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I think your argument would be better served by saying that a fictional history is a story, and thus a timeline is a summary of the events and actions of that story, thus a plot summary. From that argument, the precise definition of story becomes important. From the argument you actually make, you would be claiming that an entire setting (in this case a game setting) is a "story", which is probably rather tenuous. From the argument I suggest, I would say that a fictional history isn't a story, but can't think of cogent arguments for that off the top of my head right now. SamBC(talk) 17:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You are wikilawyering this to death. You are trying to skirt the spirit of WP:NOT#PLOT by narrowly interpreting the letter of the policy. Lists of events in a fictional work have long been considered unencylopedic, and you can't get around that by declaring your particular work of fiction is not a "story" per se. --Phirazo 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I resent that accusation. I actually have no fondness for Star Fleet Universe. I also have no dislike for it. I just disagree that fictional histories for a broad setting are stories, and I doubt that was the intent of those drafting or discerning consensus for the guidelines and policies. SamBC(talk) 20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You (Phirazo) need to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) where it says this: "Examples of information available in primary sources include: the birth and death dates of fictional characters; performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices; history of fictional locations or organizations; background information on fictional creatures; and, of course, the plot itself." Seems fairly evident to me what can be included using primary sources without interpretation. And I know what he is saying (SamBC) , I disagree completley, there is plenty of information in fiction that without interpretation and analysis is not a plot summary. Viperix 08:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not saying that you can't extract plot points and characters from primary sources (you can), I'm saying that articles on fiction require interpretation, and you can not do that with only primary sources. Besides, this article doesn't follow WP:WAF in the slightest, since it fails most of the conclusions in that guideline. --Phirazo 17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I disagree with that. Not all information from fiction requires interpretation. One could gather plenty of information without any interpretation. Viperix 22:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a fairly long-standing principle that notability of an article's subject is unnecessary when it's a content fork due to the size of the section. It can be argued that this article would be excessively long if it were a section of the main article, hence it gets spun off as a seperate article without needing seperate notability. SamBC(talk) 22:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The idea that sub-articles are immune to notability, or that they inherit the notability of a parent article is not a "long standing principle". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akatsuki members, which was upheld in DRV. --Phirazo 00:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I was referring to the process described by WP:SPINOUT and WP:SS. Whether it's a valid case of that is another matter, but generally a valid spinout doesn't need independent notability. SamBC(talk) 01:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I have to agree with Sam here in that, in my experience, that has been a fairly long-standing principle. --Kizor 21:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep useful resource, pathetic referencing. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am going to restate my case here, since the debate above has gotten long, and I want to make myself clear. This article is little more than a plot summary, and even if we belabor the definition of "wikt:story" and "wikt:plot", this article is still a summary of a fictional work. The intent I read in WP:NOT#PLOT would say that Wikipedia is not the place for a simple summary of a work of fiction. WP:NOT#PLOT says articles on fiction must have real world context and sourced analysis, and this article has neither. The only place to find real world context and sourced analysis is secondary sources, which this article does not have. I also have concerns that a timeline like this is a derivative work of Star Fleet Universe, since it does not have the critical commentary that would make it allowable as a fair use of copyrighted material. This article also has big problems with the WP:WAF guidelines, particularly because the article is derived entirely from primary sources and is almost completely in-universe. This article fails even the lower standards of an article section, and has no place anywhere in Wikipedia. Therefore, it should be deleted. --Phirazo 17:14, 2 October 2007 (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.