< June 13 Deletion review archives: 2008 June June 15 >

14 June 2008

  • Alien and Predator timeline – Deletion endorsed. The assertion, that the closure's own reasoning influenced their reading of consensus isn't shared widely, and a general agreement that there was sufficient consensus to delete this timeline is not swayed by the additional cites for some dates that have brought up here. With respect to merging, the history needs only to be undeleted, if content actually remains in the main article but cannot be attributed otherwise. – Tikiwont (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alien and Predator timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|2)


Clearly no consensus reached to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination); all deletion rationales effectively challenged. Suggest relisting or reclosing as "no consensus." Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I was the closer - this is a summary of what I wrote on GRDC's talkpage regarding why I believed the Keep !votes didn't stand up -
    • User:Colonel Warden - "no pressing reason to delete" (personal opinion)
    • User:Firefly322 - "It's verifiable" (not from secondary sources it isn't)
    • User:Tj999 - WP:USEFUL.
    • User:DGG - "Appropriate alternative way to present the material" (well fine, but I'm still not seeing secondary sources, and it's still duplicating information in other articles)
    • User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles - I don't understand your vote. You rail against "cruft" repeatedly throughout your reply, but the nominator didn't mention the word cruft at all. You say it's verifiable, but don't put forward any secondary sources. You say "The real world context is obvious", and then fail to explain what real-world context there actually is. You say "Per our First pillar, Wikipedia is a science fictional encyclopedia.", which is plainly taking 1P to mean what you believe it means. "(Wikipedia) is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction or Aliens or Predator or all three." - no, it doesn't mean that at all. I'm sorry but you really need to think about these !votes a little more.
    • User:Fordmadoxfraud - WP:USEFUL.
    • User:Myheartinchile - WP:ITSSOURCED. No, it isn't. Black Kite 00:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And here is my reply regarding the deletes:
        • User:Seraphimblade - "not verifiable" (from secondary sources it is), "personal synthesis" (anyone would come up with the same from the sources)
          • There are no secondary sources. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reviews of the films at a minimum are indeed secondary sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • But they aren't relevant to this timeline and don't address the timeline. Existence of sources for the film is irrelevant - you're looking ofr sources that specifically back up the timeline and provide critical coverage of it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • They are relevant to the timeline and address the timeline. Existence of sources is totally relevant. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Then show them. Onus is on you to refute WP:NOR and WP:V using sources. You haven't. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I have mentioned at least one in this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That science fiction encyclopedias exist? Oh joy. Not only is your attempt horribly vague, none of the mentioned encyclopedias even mention Alien vs. Predator, or provide any basis that the timeline isn't original research. You know, there's a certain area where despite our differences in ideology, common sense kicks in, and you're dutifully ignoring it every time. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Common sense is that the article covers an undeniably notable and verifiable topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Common sense is actually quite the opposite - watch the films. Read reviews. THERE ARE NO DATES GIVEN for Alien, Aliens only gives "57 years later" (57 years after WHAT DATE? None given.) Alien 3 gives nothing, Alien Resurrection gives a rough estimate of being 200 years after the previous film... Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem only provides the fact that it's not the month of October... there are NO DATES IN THE MOVIES! None given in text, in dialogue, on screen, ANYWHERE! So how can this be verifiable? Even the novelizations don't have any dates! --Bishop2 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Yes, I rewatched Aliens the other day and dates are indicated in text on screen in at least two scenes (when she looks at the picture of her deceased daughter) and during the briefing scene. In the former, Burke says that the daughetr died two years earlier, thus we can make a reasonable deduction from there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Only the last two digits of a year are given there. Do you feel comfortable assuming the century? I sure don't. --Bishop2 (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:IllaZilla - repeast points he made in previous AfD that did NOT close as delete; focus on disputed elements of Plot and Notability as rationale, repeats erroneous lack of verifiability claim
        • User:Quale - repeats nom claims refuted above
        • User:Dlohcierekim - contrary to what he said, the article is significant to the real world as it concerns one of the most notable fictional franchises of modern times and is not even a list, so calling it indiscriminate is not accurate
        • User:Deor - personal opinion: "...I don't think..."
          • A personal opinion which at least quotes a policy-based reason for deletion, unlike most of the Keep !votes. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Sgeureka - Plot is heavily contested, so hard to "violate"; makes a reasonable case for a merge
          • WP:PLOT is only contested by a few vocal editors. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Plot is only supported by a minority of vocal editors. The community at large who writes and works on these articles obviously feels otherwise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • PLOT is opposed by a minority of editors at WT:NOT, and it's still policy and not disputed. Trying to say that policy isn't policy until it isn't doesn't work. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • PLOT is supported by a minority of editors and should not be policy as it is disputed. Trying to keep it policy when the community in practice doesn't support it doesn't work. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's not disputed until it has a tag and people aren't treating it as policy. This isn't the case. Until there is a disputed tag there and it is specifically mentioned on WP:NOT#PLOT that this is the case, you have no argument. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Editors have attempted to do so, but the minority of editors supporting it do all they can to prevent a disputed tag from being placed on these sections. You have no argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • One editor has attempted to so in a manner that is disruptive. And "all they can do"? When there are two people in that whole discussion (you included) that are opposing the policy, as versus the seven or eight odd people on the other hand, you are the minority until proven otherwise. You haven't. In any case, this is a red herring. NOT#PLOT is a fait accompli - your statements don't mean anything unless they're backed up by substance, namely a disputed tag that is supported by more than two editors. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Trying to force a limited opinion on the larger community seems a bit more pointed. Say seven or 8 in that one discussion support it, well, a whole category of Wikipedians oppose the notability guidelines. Thus, you are the minority. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Coasttocoast - uses "fancruft" in rationale, so rationale is discounted
        • User:Terraxos - again, repeats inaccurate claim of original research
        • User:Masterpiece2000 - no actual reason
        • User:A_Man_In_Black - again, it is not original research as refuted in the AfD
          • Refuted where?? Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Throughout the discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then point it out. You haven't refuted anything. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes I have. Any honest read of the discussion would see that. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • An "honest" read? Or a read from your very objective viewpoint, right? Please. Again, you've shown that science fiction encyclopedias exist, which doesn't help you because you haven't even shown that any of them are related to Alien vs. Predator in any form. There's a time where ideology yields to common sense and you simply refuse to go there. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • An honest read from a logical viewpoint. You simply refuse to go to common sense here. I have mentioned more than just science fiction encyclopedias. I cannot understand how you overlooking that fact. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Judgesurreal777 - unquestionable notable and verifiable through reliable sources
          • per above. WP:OR, WP:V etc. Black Kite 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which it passes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Which it doesn't. No secondary sources, nothing to demonstrate that it isn't original research. Verifiability is our standard, not truth. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Reviews of the movies are secondary sources. No one can reasonably call this original research. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You're missing the point. None of the reviews address the timeline or the information presented in the article. In absence of reliable sources to back up the information, it is original research. Show the sources and I'll defer, but you haven't, which is quite common for you. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You're missing the point. I have mentioned at least one review that addresses the timeline presented in the article. I have shown evidence, which you refuse to acknowledge, which is quite common for you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • "I would be shocked if you cannot find any reviews of the films that do not discuss the chronology and timeline in some manner" is the first of your comments regarding reviews followed by random mentions of reviews that you claim address the timeline. Show them. You haven't. My request isn't unreasonable. Show the sources that you know exist. If you're going to claim repeatably that any person looking for sources could find these reviews, then you should be able to find them right now and show them to me. Again, the absence of credible evidence in your arguments just means they're all fluff. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • And yet, I have in this very discussion actually included at least one such review, which you refuse to acknowledge. Your arguments are not reasonable and are all fluff. When I have already linked to a review in this discussion and you refuse to acknowledge that, I just don't know what to make of it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Alientraveller - non policy or guideline based reasoning
        • two in a row repetitious non-arguments
        • User:PeaceNT - just because one user cannot find references does not mean others can't
      • Now I know some of the above posted in good faith, but the bottom line is the actual unique arguments challenge each other and most of the deletes just repeat what others said (might as well have been "per nom" as in some cases the wording is practically identical). Sufficient enough disagreement and given the previous AfD that we are left with no consensus one way or the other and so should allow editors further opportunity to improve the article as many have expressed interest in doing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Closing admin is giving no weight to keep !votes. This approach violates the good faith that a closing admin should show towards the reasoning of all keep !votes. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would I give any weight to !votes that cite no reasonable policy-based reason to keep the article? Because practically none of the Keep !votes do that, as I've pointed out above. Meanwhile, almost all the Delete votes point out the failure of the article to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT; and that is good reason to delete. Black Kite 00:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, there is plenty of policy that provides reasonable grounds to keep the article. Five pilliars especially. Moreover, the delete !votes like the closing argument suffer from a confusion between guidelines, policy, and "proof by intimidation." --Firefly322 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Practically none" is not the same as none. The delete (it is a discussion not a vote) most repeat each other and claim that it doesn't meet verifiability (anyone can see the movies or read reviews of them to verify the information), reliable sources (the films are reliable primary sources, the reviews of the film that discuss the overall continuity are reliable secondary sources), and also it is consistent with What Wikipedia is, all of which mean editors have raised concerns on both sides and there is significant enough disagreement, that while I will grant that it is not a "keep," it is at least a weak "no consensus", but not compelling enough for an unambiguous deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but I can't weigh the issue on the basis of who shouts the loudest. In the end, it has to be policy that decides the issue. Policy says - no verifiability, no reliable secondary sources, mostly plot summary. All of these are deletion-worthy failures. Closing as "no consensus" would be the easy option, but it'd also be the wrong one. Black Kite 00:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If we weighed it on who shouts the loudest, then it would be a delete. If we weighed it on policy then we have a serious disagreement. Closing as "no consensus" would be the right choice as the article concerns a notable topic that is verifiable within any reasonable standards and that a significant amount of editors were both working to improve upon and argued in defense of in two AfDs. Just because a handful of editors don't want others to improve the article, doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to or that we can't. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't accept that by repeating your '5 pillars' argument, you can justify keeping any article, no matter how serious the original research problems. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I thought sgeureka was highlighting somewhere different policies for lists, which is what this is, in effect. It is a pity the only two sources are blogs or personal websites of some sort though. However, though not stricly RS it does invalidate arguments of OR. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not going to indent-reply to GRDC's second set of comments, because sadly they are not worthy of reply. Merely saying that something has been "refuted" without explaining why and how it has been refuted is (and I'm trying to AGF very hard here) really, really, unhelpful and insulting to a large number of people. I'm going to log out for the night now, before I say or do something I later regret. Black Kite 01:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is BK, like me and Neil, for that matter, you have a well-known opinion on these sorts of articles, so closing them will result in scrutiny by the 'other side'. Your opinion is such you should have voted rather than closed (even though the article does want for sourcing) if you find such questioning unwelcome. I should add that if I do close I fully expect my actions to be scrutinized and I have no problem with that. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse as fair reading of a contested AfD, applying cold weightings to !votes based on strengths of arguments. However, maybe starting to see evidence that the closer cares too much, therefore is not necessarily impartial, and maybe should've left this one for someone else. A no consensus close would've been possible. Had I !voted, I might have tried to find a suitable redirect. I don't like seeing deletion of attempts to organise existing content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closed on the basis of the admin own personal reading of policy. He should rather have joined the discussion. He seems to think that such an article needs secondary sources, though he's probably wrong about that. right or wrong, that does not in any event give him the right to throw out the views of those people who disagree with him. The only discretion an admin ought to have at a disputed afd closing is to discard the votes of those with no basis in policy whatsoever, not to pick which[policy he proposes to support in a disputed closing. Admins do not make policy, and their views on what is the correct policy have no more weight than anyone else's. DGG (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per preceding. couldn't have said it better myself.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request temporary undeletion. Can we please have the article temporarily undeleted. The issue of whether !votes were properly discarded assumes a familiarity of the article in question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The close did not follow WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete. There was obviously no consensus for deletion and so the guideline When in doubt, don't delete applied. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh, someone just restore the fucking thing. There's clearly absolutely no point in actually having a process if we're going to have DRVs that are based on who closed the AfD, rather than their actual rationale for doing so. Well done. You win. I give up. Black Kite 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closing admin followed WP:DGFA#Rough consensus which states that "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." (emphasis added). Verifiability can only come through reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I can certainly sympathize with the closer's rationale here, but I do believe this is a case where the closing admin has crossed the line between interpreting consensus and imposing their own rationale upon the discussion. It was a close call to be sure, but I really can't see calling this one a consensus to delete. Shereth 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The article lacks primary, not secondary sources. While in general I do find arguments that fictional timeline articles only need sources from the works themselves valid, the problem is that not a single primary source that verifies stuff written here was pointed out during the debate. I fail to see from which source all the exact years come from. This is one of the rare cases where a fiction article seems to fail Verifiability. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closer correctly based decision on policy based rationale, not personal opinion. Seraphim♥Whipp 10:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were not. Policy trumps opinion. When you say "there are sources", you have to actually prove it rather than just say it. Sources that discuss reception are clearly unsuitable to back up content for a timeline. Please don't respond...I've seen the regurgitation of people's comments and I don't want to be prodded about my choice of endorse. I have made my mind up by examining the debates and will not change my mind unless ACTUAL sources are brought forward that discuss content directly related to the timeline. Otherwise I'm seeing something that is original research, unverified by tertiary reliable sources and therefore has no notability established. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, policy does trump opinion and if we go by policy then we would keep the article. I have shown that sources do exist. Sources that do more than just discuss reception, but also mention the timeline coupled with commentary on DVDs are clearly suitable to back up content for a timeline. Actual sources have been brought forward that discuss content directly related to the timeline. It is not original research and is verified by reliable sources and therefore notability has been established. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - closer correctly assessed the consensus at hand that was based on policy, and discredited the parts of the opposition that were backed by personal opinion. Nothing has been shown that the article passes WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOR, WP:V, or WP:NOTE. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy based consensus would have been to keep then as it passed what Wikipedia is, is unoriginal research, is verifiable, and notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is not true because you haven't provided sources to back up the information in the article, and you haven't provided any evidence that the article is notable. All of your assertions here are fluff and have no credibility if there isn't something concrete behind them. Actual proof of notability, verifiability, and that the article is not original research changes arguments, not mere statements that it is so without tangible evidence. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you read the whole discussion, you will see that I have presented sources to back up the information in the article. Saying the article is not notable is like saying an apple is a bannana. All of your assertions here are fluff an dhave no credibility as actual proof of notability, verifiability, and that the article is not original research has been presented. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I can safely say the article isn't notable in absence of sources to say otherwise. I've read the discussion. You've shown that science fiction encyclopedias exist; whether they even address or comment on Alien vs. Predator is quite another matter. You've claimed that reviews exist throughout the article, but never shown them. You've never provided a single source that addresses whether the article is notable, verifiable, or that its content isn't all synthesis. Frankly, this is getting to the point I've illustrated above in which regardless of ideology, common sense pervades at some point. You've never linked to a review or provided an example of a review. Claiming otherwise is simply lying at this point, and your perpetutation of basically the same crap time and time again is just annoying. Show that sources exist by showing them now, or your arguments are well, fluff. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can safely say the article is notable, because sources have been mentioned in the discussion. I have indeed cited a review in this discussion that comments on Alien vs. Predator. I have provided a source that addresses whether the article is notable, verifiable, and that its content is not all synthesis. Frankly, this is getting to the point I've also illustrated above in which regardless of ideology, common sense pervades at some point. I have linked to a review. Claiming that I haven't is simply lying at this point, and your perpetuation of basically the same crap time and time again is just annoying. I have shown that source and it is not my problem if you are unable to locate it in the discussion, as your arguments are well, fluff. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Correct closure, WP:SYN creation without honest verifiability. Delete rationales were not rebutted. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - correct closure based on arguments, not numbers. PhilKnight (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If based on numbers in the one particular AfD, then it would be a delete, but if based on arguments, it would be a "no consensus." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anyway, by refuted I mean looking at the AfD and seeing where the various participants challenged the delete rationales. I think some of those who argued there did in fact make good faith and reasonable claims, which is why I am not saying you should have closed as keep, but rather as "no consensus" or to relist to see if we could get some new ideas presented in the discussion. After all Judgesurreal777, Peace NT, and sgeureka, for example, are editors who appear on my list of nice Wikipedians (as do you) and so are editors whom I respect and esteem, even if we disagree here and there. My main concern is that I do not believe the delete rationales were so overwhelming in the face of the keeps made across two AfDs as well as the unheard voices of those who created and worked on the article as well as the many readers who come to Wikipedia for the article that it was a clear cut deletion. When there are fairly strong calls to keep and for a variety of reasons and from multiple editors, I would have to say, barring a copyright concern, libel, or hoax issues, we really should close as "no consensus." If the main criticism is that it's original research, well, we're talking about a major movie series seen by millions of people world wide in theaters, on DVD, on VHS, on television, etc. These films include dates and mention how many years since any given event has occurred. These films have been covered in published magazines. It's not information being presented that one person found in an archive and is reporting to us and we're taking his word for it. Millions of people can verify the timeline. Yes, I know we have a verifiability page, but there's also just being reasonable and it is unreasonable to use a term like verifiability and say it doesn't apply to something that millions of people can verify with relative ease. It's not original research as well, because it is not an essay, doesn't have a thesis, is not some experiment one person conducted and is reporting his findings on, and nor is it an article that only one person originally worked on. Multiple editors with different motivations are hardly original researchers. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts (yes, I know, this was before I wised up and realized "per nom" is week) is original research and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's New Happening on Disney Channel India is what I would consider an unacceptable future "timeline" of sorts. But take such reviews as this, which says things like "This film takes the two popular xenomorphs and sets them in the present. As a result the film slots into the chronology after the two Predator films but before the Alien series." and "Set on Earth in the year 2004..." (such reviews and such comments mentioning specific dates and sequence of events exist for all of the films and events listed on the now deleted article and I would have been better able to add these to the article if it didn't seem necessary to go back and forth with some in the AfD). The dates and chronology and sequences of events are mentioned specifically and discussed critically in secondary source reviews of the films. So, again, I have nothing personal against you or many of those in the discussion and nor do I doubt that many acted in good faith or that every rationale presented to delete was totally baseless. I do however contend that the concerns were responded to and that if the discussion itself had ended as a no consensus then I and others would be able to use these kinds of reviews like the one I cite above to in fact improve the article in a manner that would effectively address their concerns. It is simply hard to do that and debate editors at the same time. Best,--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plenty of refutations asserted, but unless they are successful they do not rebut the rationale put forward. Simply responding to the concerns does not refute them. None of the keep arguments satisfactorily overcome the policy-based deletion arguments. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. While reading through the arguements, consensus did weave back and forth a little, and no consensus did seem a perfectly valid close. Right up until the end, when PeaceNT made another statement that the films do not actually verify the dates in the timeline. I just checked Alien (own a VHS copy), and this seems to be the case. If the content can't even be verified from primary sources, it can be safely assumed that the content is original research. Given this, the keep arguements are all clearly weaker. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, no consensus would be the correct close. The content can be verified from primary secondary sources, which is why the delete arguments are clearly weaker. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda' saying that quite a bit that is supposedly sourced from primary sources can't actually be. For instance, dates aren't explicitly mentioned in Alien. Nor are they in Aliens (though it does take place 57 years later; again, I own a VHS copy). The dates appear to be WP:OR. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some odd reason my DVD disc is skipping, but anyway my DVD of the Aliens Special Edition includes a scene in which Ripley is handed a photograph of her daughter. The photograph includes the deceased daughter's "DB" and "DECEASED" dates (years, months, days). The dialogue says that the daughter died 2 years prior to the events in which the scene takes place and the DVD description text says Aliens takes place 57 years after Alien. Also, if you watch the next scene in which Ripley is talking with all of the company types and look at the screen with green letters, you will see dates included in that text as well. I'll have to watch all the movies again to see if there are other such inclusion of dates as well and again would have to check again if they match the article's dates, but in any event, there are at least two scenes in the special edition of Aliens that do in fact satisfy that aspect of the primary source element by displaying specific dates down to the days and months even. Sincerely,--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must've missed them; I didn't get far into Alien and had friends over the last time I watched both, so... Whatever. Retracted above comments, I'm now neutral. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check again To the right of each date is a film where the date originated. Checking the wikipedia article Alien (film)#Plot, one finds that 2122 A.D. is that year in which the events take place. Thus, this date is not WP:OR. This procedure can be done for the other dates. Secondary sources are sometimes needed and these have already been used in the articles on the films themselves--as shown. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All that infobox shows is when the films were released, not the fictional dates of the stories the films portray. This list is about the fictional dates, and is synthesis based on extrapolating (ie. guesswork) from the films themselves. The only source cited that is not based on such speculation is the Behind the scenes commentary on AvP. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Le Grand and LifeBaka. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? Me and Le Grand Roi disagree here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the arguments were given appropriate weight. "Hasn't got any secondary sources" and "consists of original research" are strong arguments. --Hut 8.5 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: The deleting admin has done the right thing and restored the article as requested. Kudos to him and thus this discussion seems no longer necessary as the reason for filing the DRV has been responded to satisfactorily. Thank you, Black Kite. I should also note that due to a merge mentioned above, we cannot re-delete the article for legal reasons per the GFDL (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). Finally, if the article is unprotected and will add citations accordingly. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My restoring of the article should not be taken as a change of opinion, and it should still be deleted if the result of this DRV is Endorse. There is no GFDL issue; the information shouldn't have been merged whilst under AfD anyway, and regardless the history will still exist at that article. However, it should be removed from that article, as the result of the AfD was not Merge. Black Kite 19:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is unprotected, then I would be able to add the citations that any reasonable person would see meets our standards. Someone other than one of the participants here merged the material, which is okay, after all we're trying to build an encyclopedia and therefore because of that we do at least need to keep as a redirect per the GFDL. I suggest perhaps contacting the user who merged and notifying him or her of this discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - that would set a really poor precedent. We don't need to keep a redirect because that editor merged the information whilst the AfD was running. If we do this, people are just going to start copying material from any article at AfD to another one, calling it a "merge", and then saying "look, you can't delete it at AFD now because of the GFDL". The original editor might've done it innocently, but that really isn't the point. Black Kite 20:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how that would be a bad thing. After all, we do encourage editors to be "bold." And if the information is considered valuable enough by editors to merge in good faith, then it shouldn't be a problem. Now if an editor merged something libelous or that was a copyright violation, okay sure, but in this case when a number of editors also agree that there is some value in keeping the information somewhere, one AfD shouldn't be the end all of the mtter. After all, we allow editors to keep renominating articles for deletion even if previous AfDs closed as keep. So, if someone thinks the material can be merged and others agree regardless of one five day AfD concerning information for an article that has been around for several months and which a number of editors have worked on, we should allow those editors to do the best they can with the material in question so that they can better develop our comprehensive general/special encyclopedia/almanac. It would be unacademic to think that certain articles can never be improved. We already know that this article is a legitimate search term and as seen above, there is a substantial split regarding its value to our project. If we keep it in some capacity, then those like myself who own the Quadilogy four disc set (which means sooner or later I can get around to watching the special features and commentary for any comments on timeline) and those who have subscriptions to magazines or books (I have an Alien novel lying about somewhere that I can check when I get a chance for any mention of dates) can look for interviews with the filmmakers as to when they films are set. I know the films do have some coverage in books and so I would be shocked if there isn't some kind of coverage and discussion of the films' setting that could allow for a beter referenced actual timeline and maybe even a reception section as well. I do not think this is a clear case of something that has no Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. I strongly believe that we can reasonably improve the article further and that we should be able to do so as if we succeed, we will only improve our project, but whereas we don't really gain anything by just deleting an article that a number of editors (I'm not alone on this one) also believe has value. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion'. By what possible rationale can this mess of original research and unreliable sources be kept? Corvus cornixtalk 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE GFDL Issue. There is an issue, as deleted content from Alien and Predator timeline exists in Alien vs. Predator without complete attribution. The obvious solutions are (1) restore Alien and Predator timeline as a redirect to Alien vs. Predator, or (2) remove the content from Alien vs. Predator. Arguably, an alternative case for DRV might be that the merge option, while mentioned in AfD2, was obscured by excessive verbiage, not given enough attention, and was actually a good idea. Thus, given that I thing the close was harsh but fair, the question now should be whether the material should be allowed to stay in Alien vs. Predator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted - or redelete now). While this was a closer call than many, I find no process problems in the deletion discussion or in the closure. Closers are supposed to weight the opinions offered in accordance with their alignment with established policy. I would have appreciated a lengthier explanation in the close itself, but the closer has explained his/her decision clearly here. (The GFDL issue will require more investigation, though. Still working through the histories to see if the content was actually copied from another page first, which could make the GFDL impact on this page moot.) Rossami (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The process problem lies in the AfD lacking an actual consensus. Sometimes even if a closer means well and explains themselves, their decision can still be incorrect, especially in the light of additional evidence and sources as presented above, such as secondary source reviews that directly mention dates and primary sources that also directly mention dates (even down to the months and days). Some of the deletion concerns were actually over primary sources and at least two scenes in Aliens do indeed include text that shows years and mention when the events occuring occur relative to those years. And doing a quick search of reviews does turn up some other citable material. A five day AfD is not the definitive end to an article. When new sources appear, we should restore the article and add those sources and then if someone later wants to try again at AfD, so be it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Le Grand, you have made your opinion quite clear. Please trust that the rest of us are smart enough and conscientious enough to have read the comments above - and that even after having read your comments, we can in good faith disagree with you. Responding to every post and repeating the same arguments over and over detracts from your credibility. Rossami (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, although if it is a discussion, I think it should flow as one, i.e. one in which we interact, and I hope that some of the above will also acknowledge that repeating their same arguments over and over just as much detracts from their credibility. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per my arguments in the AfD. I'm sure that within a few hours (minutes?) LGRdC will step in and say that all my arguments were successfully refuted, but the fact is (and I think the closing admin would obviously agree) they weren't. None of the editors who want to keep the article offer any solutions to its numerous problems: It is original research because it is based only on primary sources. It is merely plot summary in a different form. Even if it were permitted to only be based on primary sources, much of the information does not appear to be verified by the films (on that note: I'm re-watching the films to check on this...so far only watched Alien in which no dates are given. I've been out of town a few days so it'll take me a while to get to the rest). The notability of the article's topic has been challenged and not a single secondary source has been provided to support its claims to notability. It has been 2 and a half months since the close of the first AfD and no efforts have been made to address any of these valid concerns, despite the placement of maintenance tags. The "keep" !voters offer no solutions; they merely claim that these problems are "non-arguments" (ie. that articles may be based only on primary sources...complete poppycock which contradicts all of the core article policies: V, NOR, & NOT). Consensus is of course not a vote, but I see in the AfD a 2/3 majority in favor of deletion based on valid, well-reasoned arguments backed up by policies; vs. 1/3 opposed to deletion with rationales like "wikilawyering" and "helps alien and predator fans". There are of course LGRdC's arguments such as "notability is inherited" and "secondary sources are not required" but as I've already pointed out numerous times these are incorrect assumptions that completely contradict many of our policies and guidelines as well as precedent established in past AfDs where notability was a major concern. LGRdC, you needn't reply to this comment (though I imagine you will anyway) as I'm not interested in another circular debate with you in which you merely take my own words and change "is" to "isn't" & repeat the same opinions ad nauseum. The opinions of the few others who agree with you are the only ones you seem to consider valid anwyay. In my honest opinion Black Kite judged the consensus properly, weighing not only the !votes but the validity of the arguments and their reflection of Wikipedia's policies and best practices. The swift listing here at DRV only shows that the few editors who did !vote "keep" view any closure not in their favor as unfair and "no consensus", which any reasonable person actually reading the arguments in the AfD will see is untrue. To claim that Black Kite somehow simply disregarded the "keep" !votes is complete and utter nonsense and amounts only to petulant whining on the part of those who did not get their way. Just because a discussion does not end the way you wanted it to does not mean that the arbiter ignored your arguments. I find this whole thing ridiculous, and the only thing keeping me from washing my hands of the whole affair is the desire not to appear as though I have been beaten into submission by pointless repetition until finally throwing up my hands in surrender, as it seems Black Kite was driven to do. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It seems the deletion was driven by some poor overgeneralizations. Our general notability guideline prescribes that articles should generally be supported by secondary sources that substantiate the notability of the subject. A common exception, which is not specifically mentioned in WP:N but is supported by some precedent (albeit an inconsistent one) and some related guideline, deals with forking large amounts of content. Subjects like Alien and Predator are highly notable, so it makes sense to document them in somewhat more depth than usual, but for obvious reasons we don't want the whole . For all intents and purposes the timeline can be considered an extension of the Alien and Predator article, and it should be evaluated as such. We give this appropriately unique treatment to lists all the time (hence we have a list of bridges, which certainly does not meet WP:N); the same concept applies to this timeline. There's a reason why our general notability guideline is not policy (and even our "official policies" are not exactly policies). There is a similar issue with the primary sources. Primary sourcing is bad in many contexts -- often they are difficult or impossible to access (unpublished interview, for example), and often they are subject to varying, contentious interpretations. There is absolutely no problem with using a film as a primary reference for unambiguous, descriptive observations; the interpretations that are being drawn from WP:V and WP:RS have very little to do with the spirit thereof. — xDanielx T/C\R 08:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that the summary style guidelines you bring up caution against splitting a topic that doesn't have real-world coverage, in the section WP:AVOIDSPLIT:

"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. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and can be split off into their own article."

In this case the specific notability criteria would be WP:FICT#Elements of fiction which is still in development, but also calls for real-world coverage through secondary sources: "Elements of a work of fiction, including individual stories, episodes, characters, settings, and other topics, are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources." "Evidence of notability should explain what is special about the topic, such as awards, rankings, sales figures or studies and analyses specifically relating to the element in question." Precedent does show that list articles are often treated a bit differently (hence we have separate featured list criteria, which by the way still call for the use of reliable sources). However, the article in question here is not a list article. It is an attempt to synthesize plot information from a series in a separate article, and hence is an article devoted entirely to plot summary. The list of bridges you point out is just that: a list of other articles. It serves much the same purpose as Category:Bridges. This article is significantly more than that, as it presents and synthesizes plot information and relies quite a bit on the detective skills of the author (you can see that once the article's talk page is undeleted). As seen there, here, and in the 2 AfDs, there is quite a bit of contention as to whether the films actually verify the dates given in the article. There do seem to be varying, contentious interpretations because the dates in the films are, in many cases, ambiguous. I'm looking into this issue independently at the moment, but obviously this takes time as it involves skimming through 8 films. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section was added about two months ago, following minor edit warring but no talk page discussion. It's unclear whether the addition would stand up to scrutiny if the little-known guideline were watched by a more substantial number of editors. There is some precedent for giving unique treatment to certain types of forks, but as I said, it is an inconsistent one; it doesn't take much searching to see that WP:FICT, WP:NOT#FICT, and WP:SS are in a state of derangement. (The related ArbCom finding, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Unclear status, states it succinctly.) Given this, I think it's appropriate to discuss the merits of various interpretations (which is what my above comment attempts to do). — xDanielx T/C\R 21:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Timelines are an important sidebar for understanding complex multi version fiction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion Review is not AfD round 2, please provide an explanation of why you believe this AfD was closed incorrectly. Whether or not timelines are useful in general is irrelevant. --Stormie (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. No evidence that deletion process was not followed properly; no new sourcing has come to light. The mass of verbiage presented by the nominator is merely an attempt to reargue the AfD here. Deor (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please actually re-read the above discussion more carefully. New sourcing has indeed come to light. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only 1 source has been presented: A review of Alien vs. Predator which only mentions that the film is set between the 2 existing franchises and that it takes place in 2004. This is obvious to anyone, especially if you've already read the Alien vs. Predator article, and it certainly doesn't show why the timeline of events in the series is notable. Claiming that "new sourcing has indeed come to light", when it consists only of 1 source that barely addresses this article's subject, is a rather specious claim. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am also referring to the primary source discovery of dates that appear in the special edition of Aliens. At least two of those who had previously argued to delete did so based on lack of primary evidence, so the review is an effort to address those with secondary source concerns (if I could find one, I bet given even more time, I'll find others) and the scenes mentioned from Aliens address the secondary source claims (I'll have to rewatch the whole series to see if there are more, but I wonder if the novelizations and reviews of the novelizations could also turn up stuff? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could I request temporary undeletion of the article's talk page as well - there were some discussions there on some of the issues that need to be fixed, and/or what people might be doing to fix them. (I also think that expecting huge amounts to be done at end-of-semester for a number of the major contributors was asking a bit much.) I'd ask BlackKite directly, but he appears to have gone on wikibreak. thx, umrguy42 15:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus per DGG. Closer appears to have acted more in tune with his/her personal feelings about the article, rather than with the consensus (or lack thereof) of the community. To disclose fully, as mentioned above, I myself did argue to keep the article. Ford MF (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Could an interested admin please check on the restoration of the article? It seems to be in some sort of protected state and is not able to be edited, and the talk page has not been restored. Although I still support deletion, the apparent error bugs me and is preventing at least 1 interested party (Le Grand) from potentially making good faith edits. I am conducting some investigating of my own into the article's verifiability problems that I would like to post on the talk page if the deletion is indeed overturned (which, again, I don't think should happen, but if it is overturned I would like a place to present these findings). --IllaZilla (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Done by XDanielx. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that I wasn't setting precedent with that close, and it's still being reviewed. Shereth 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you be more specific about that example? I don't see a relation between that case and this one at all. That was a case built around NOTNEWS and dealing with an article about a current event; this is an article dealing with a subtopic of a science fiction franchise. I'm even further confused by the fact that you !voted to delete in that article, yet you ask for an overturn here. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. Without trying to be WP:POINTy, the no consensus close there was determined from the NOT#NEWS being unable to sway the keeps, who were poignant in their opposition to deletion. I see the same poingancy here, and none of the NOT#SYN and NOT#PLOT arguments, made any of the keeps change their arguments, or at least consider a merge. That does not strike me as consensus, and since there ratio of people with the same keep argument to people the same delete argument is even closer in this case, I feel they should be closed the same way, as no consensus. Consenus can always change, and at a future AfD, perhaps one argument will be more persuaive. Please note I would have !voted to overturn anyway, but I felt this recent case provides a good example to work from when defining "no consensus" (even though I disagree with the AFD and DRV of my example, I am following what my interpreation of the overall community opinion is). MrPrada (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse. Here's the problem - the people supporting the article keep claiming that the facts in it are verifiable. Bottom line: It's just not true. If you watch any of the films, no dates are given in any of them except two - Predator 2 and Alien vs. Predator. Now, Predator 2 does provide a date for the first Predator in its confines, but that's it. NO dates are given in any of the Alien films for when they happen; you can claim over and over that there's verifiable evidence, but it's simply not there. I even own the novelizations of these movies, and again, no dates exist. We have here all these arguments about "secondary sources' and stuff, and that's just irrelevant; the PRIMARY SOURCES do not back this information up. There are basically no sources. Only through crazy math and a lot of assumptions do you come up with these dates. The last time it was proposed for deletion, the creator backed it up by linking to another fan's online timeline. And that timeline was backed up with... a lot of admitted guesswork. If that's the best we've got, it really doesn't belong on Wiki. Fanon doesn't belong, original research doesn't belong. It's gotta go. --Bishop2 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aliens includes scenes that do in fact provide specific dates and other reliable material does indicate the time that passes between films. Claiming that dates do not exist is just not true; I rewatched the film the other day and there they are in two scenes at least. Unoriginal research does belong. It has to stay. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above. Original research and guesswork are not appropriate for Wikipedia, and the discussion never addressed this cogently. --Haemo (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. After reading the discussion above, the AfD discussion itself and looking at the restored version of the article, it seems to me that the closing admin made a reasonable decision in interpreting consensus. Nsk92 (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that some of it was merged and so due to teh GFDL, we cannot keep the article deleted. Also, requests have been made to unprotect the article in order to reference it and perhaps relist. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (briefly returning from Wikibreak). (1) I have unprotected the article for the time being. (2) There is no need to relist unless this DRV results in "Overturn and Relist". (2) There is no GFDL issue. The material shouldn't have been merged during the AfD, and if this DRV results in Endorse, then we merely remove the merged material as well. Black Kite 08:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doing a merge during an afd doesn't prevent an article from getting deleted, for obvious reasons. The merged material can be removed from the merge target, and if someone starts edit-warring to put it back, he can be blocked for disruption or violating copyright (in case the material wasn't originally written by him). - Bobet 11:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does this refer to list in Alien vs. Predator? I'm neutral to to all this and did not do anything to this timeline article. Ultra! 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, in the sense that if this closes with 'endorse deletion', the list should be removed. And it's generally not a good idea to do a merge during an afd, unless the forming concensus is obvious. If the concensus isn't obvious, you can leave a note in the discussion saying you'd be willing to do a merge if the discussion gets closed with that result; it's always appreciated and can sometimes get merge decisions closed faster (since admins don't always like doing mergers themselves). On another note, when you merge stuff, you should leave a note about it in your edit summary. - Bobet 09:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of article whose premise -- that there is a coherent time continuum/frame and that characters' dialog and small print on a prop sheet of paper -- is original research and a failure to abide by policies regarding reliable sources. Weight of strong delete arguments bolstered by WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:PLOT, WP:OR trump unsubstantiated claims of secondary sources existing out in the ether. --EEMIV (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - the dates for Alien and Aliens are clearly stated in the book Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual (ISBN 0061053430), the other dates are mentioned in either the movie novelisations or on screen. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's good, but the Technical Manual isn't provided as a referenced in the article. If you own it, you could add citations to some of the dates and that might help. It still doesn't solve the problem of secondary sources, though (the Tech. Manual is a primary source, as it's a work of fiction and part of the supporting media for Aliens). Also, as Bishop2 points out, the films and their novelizations do not actually mention most of the dates that appear in the timeline article. If you have those novelizations and can prove that they show the dates, go ahead and add them as references or bring them up here. Otherwise it seems several other editors disagree that they give any dates. What's really needed are third-party sources which discuss the timeline of events in these films and why they are significant. This would solve the original research and notability issues. But I don't belive such sources exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - valiant effort to maintain our standards on blatant violations of WP:OR and [[:WP:V}. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Good close. We need more like 'em. Eusebeus (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, good policy-based analysis of a difficult AfD. --Stormie (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the AfD, the article has nevertheless improved somewhat and as indicated above a GFDL concern has also been identified. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the material is deemed appropriate for Alien vs. Predator then of course the authors must be credited, although I see that it has already been removed as "in-universe OR". If there is consensus to reinsert, be sure to add a note to the talk page crediting the original authors. --Stormie (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good call. Consensus gets judged on weight of argument against policy not headcount and assertions of notability that are not backed uup by sources are rightly excludable from the closing assessment. Spartaz Humbug! 18:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the close was a bad call as there was no argument based consensus to delete, with keep arguments in support of policy and assertions of notability backed up by sources, I ask that JediLofty help out by using the book he mentions above to add to the sources in the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense - and you know you really don't need to challenge every comment that is different to you. Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it is nonsense to delete an article being revised and in a discussion, we interact, i.e. discuss with each other. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem is that you are not discussing. You're simply repeating the same thing ("see the sources") without providing anything new to the debate. Trying to twist a commenter's words around, like you did above, also does not endear you to others here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (and redelete). Near-complete consensus at the AFD, Citrouilles' disruptive filibustering notwithstanding, and even if there were not, deletion would be correct. Illazilla's arguments are particularly compelling. —Cryptic 13:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no "near-complete consensus" at the AfD when a good number of editors present particularly compelling arguments to keep and saying disruptively otherwise is dishonest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Closer got this right the first time. HiDrNick! 12:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Queen of Bollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Disambiguation page was improperly speedily redirected as "total nonsense, unreferenced, magazine/fansite-style written fangush, as well as blatant POV and false," yet this was the title reported in each case by international news organizations as the BBC, CBC, Time, Newsweek, and The Hindu. Dab pages don't cite articles, they cannot be written "fanzine-style" as it is a list of articles with a common characteristic, and attempts to add the cited terms to the appropriate articles [1],[2],[3] have been quickly reverted by a particular fervent editor who subsequently threatened a block for 3RR. Dab pages cannot be POV if they merely contain lists of people who have been reported in the international press as having that sobriquet. The fact that reliable sources, namely news organizations, have reported people as being dubbed with that name, clearly show that A) the term is not nonsense and B) either a dab page or a stand-alone article is needed here. The dab page itself was prompted by a WP:RfD discussion of The Queen of Bollywood, which itself is a redirect to an article that was mentioned on the dab page. B.Wind (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Almost every popular actress/singer in Bollywood throughout her career was called The queen of Bollywood. It's full fangush and POV. Take Priyanka Chopra for example, she is merely a beauty pageant newcomer who is not even considered a talented actress. All of the mentioned sites are, though reliable, often written in a magazine style. It's just a simple magazine/fansite description to praise female actors - there is nothing formal, and Wikpedia is WP:NOT a magazine.
    Just a good aside note,
    ( The list was in addition to being redundant, was full of blatant POV and bias. It implies as if these particular actresses are the most popular, why it's clearly isn't the case. Your list for example did not include top-actresses like Nargis, Rekha, Waheeda Rehman, Nutan, Meena Kumari, Hema Malini (who is the most popular Bollywood actress ever), Preity Zinta (who is Bollywood's most successful actress today), which invalidates their popularity, especially considering they are also described this way, but you - either overlooked or didn't notice, which can happen quite often in this case. And that's only my simple list; someone can come tomorrow and wonder why another actress is not there. ).
    Coming back to the matter, another important note, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You can add many reliable sources, but it doesn't mean that you can add everything using them. Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Can we go and add that?
    It's by all means nonsense. I ould say, assuming good faith, that you have to familiarise yourself with some policies. This list, dab or whatever is clearly in violation of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE etc. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 20:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's check a few of the above assertions here. As stated below, omission is not a reason for the deletion of a disambiguation page - all you have to do is add the missing entries. A dab page listing the articles for actresses and singers that have been reported by international news organizations (not fan sites) is NPOV as long as the entries all meet a common criterion. Third, I urge the editors to revisit the Wikipedia definition of WP:NONSENSE - this clearly falls short of this. Using cited reference from reliable sources refutes any accusation of OR, and a one-sentence mention of such a cited, objective statement by the BBC, and so forth, is hardly undue weight. From this end, it looks more like a turf battle instead of an actual, valid, justification for a speedy deletion of a dab page. B.Wind (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's your problem, you read only my last paragraph, ignoring the other. It is nonsense - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite or some sleazy magazine. Shahid • Talk2me 07:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong disapproval of the page - "Queen of Bollywood" is merely a loose title occasionally used by the media to glorify an actress in a discussion. For an encyclopedia any "Queen of Bollywood" is likely to be subject to POV of the actress involved and it certianly should not be linked, if mentioned at all in an encyclopedia. I wonder how many actresses could be called a Queen. There are several, whether its Rekha, Hema Malini, or modern day Aishawarya Rai or Preity Zinta, Ther eis only one "Queen" so a dab page is highly inappropriate and not what this encyclopedia is about. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but not for any of the reasons the deleting admin cited. None of the pages on that dab use the word "queen" anywhere in the body text and all should've been removed. This would've left a blank article which could be deleted under A3. So deletion overall is a good thing. However, the reasons cited are nearly all bunk, with the exception of nonsense, which the cached version at least wasn't. The deleting admin and the tagging editor need to note this to avoid mistakes in the future, but in this case the end result is proper. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTES. 1) I brought this to DRV in an attempt for a wider discussion than the three or four people who actually saw it before it was hastily deleted. It would be nice, if not appropriate, to let the rest of the Wikipedia community actually see the disambiguation page that lasted less than three hours. The wider review is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. 2) None of the pages currently have the cited phrase as one of the editors above was particularly fervent in reverting without even looking at either the statement or the sources such as Newsweek, Time, the BBC, CBC, The Hindu, CBS News... and that's just a handful of reliable sources. Thus the reverting was clearly in bad faith, and rather than aim for WP:LAME, particular after a WP:THREAT regarding WP:3RR from the same fervent editor, it was more prudent to take the issue here. 3) Dab pages don't have citations; furthermore, they are rarely complete - omissions are reasons for editing, not deletion. 4) Regarding the comment about CSD#R3: good-faith edits cannot be vandalism (per WP:VANDAL), and the creation of a dab page is clearly a good faith edit; therefore CSD R3 cannot apply here. 5) Regarding Lifebaka's comments, the "nonsense" point is itself nonsense, as reported by international news agencies, as stated above. 6) As I pointed out in my discussions with both User:Shshshsh and the deleting admin, the fact that so many international news organizations globally have used the term in stating to that phrase having been applied to various Bollywood actresses and singers necessitates either a dab page to the various article of the people addressed by the reliable sources only or a stand-alone article covering the term Queen of Bollywood. 7) Denying both possibilities is also counter to Wikipedia policies - as to POV and bias, Shshshsh must be reminded of the difference between the POV of stating that someone is "Queen of Bollywood" in the form of a personal opinion and stating that a reliable news source has applied the sobriquet to her or has factually stated that it had been applied. For the time being, I urge a temporary undeletion so that the rest of the Wikipedia community can view the dab page in question so they can have an informed input into this discussion. B.Wind (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Haven't entirely worked out what's going on here, but cannot see why Queen of Bollywood is neither a redirect nor a dab page. It's a term in existance, has lots of google hits, including reliable sources, and it should not be a redlink. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you also create an article for Hollywood? I repeat, it's just a way to praise popular actresses - and you can praise evewhere: newspapers, fansites. Every possible actress who saw success has been described the Queen.
      It's POV and I can explain wby. Examples only:
      A) That term is used to describe popular actresses, and the problem is that readers will conclude that the list consists of the most popular. But everything is possible, and take for example Hema Malini, who is the most successful Bollywood actress of all-time; it's quite possible that she does not appear in any of those tabloids as Queen of Bollywood. And if an article like this exists, it will invalidate her success. That's an example of POV in this case.
      B) It's also good to note that many other actresses have been called Queens but did not appear on the list. Meaning, they were just ignored by the user who created the page. So he either overlooked some names because he doesn't like an actress or just did not notice. Both cases show that such pages are anything but misleading lists, full of bias, POV and confusuion.
      As for reliable sources - it's still fangush. Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Can we go and add that? Definitely not - because, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
      BTW, if that's so important, would you find a source describing the term itself? Shahid • Talk2me 07:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, before the big brouhahah, I had, in fact found 28 citations from reliable sources stating that various women were dubbed "Queen of Bollywood" (and one as "Queen of Bollywood music") - about 10-11 in the three diffs above. Of course, the arguments immediately above this post are but a obfuscation of the purpose of deletion review, which is stated atop the WP:DRV page to be used to review the process of the deletion. We still do not have an explanation of the CSD criterion being used for its speedy deletion anywhere - the rationale by the deleting admin was a (disputed) rationale for deletion under RfD, not CSD. Of course, as hinted by the posts by Shshshsh/Shalid and User:SmokeyJoe above, should someone wish to write a NPOV article about the widely-used and -reported term Queen of Bollywood instead of the dab page, I would have no such objection and would be more than willing to withdraw my application for review upon the composition and delivery of such an adequately-sourced article. Of course, if someone wishes even to block that article, even if it's written with a worldwide view, it would be clear that he/she/it would be more interested in denying good faith by the other editors that are involved here, in which case there's a deeper problem than just the improper deletion of a dab page. B.Wind (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I didn't realize this discussion was already underway when I found the page. The page at time of deletion did not qualify for speedy-deletion under any of our existing criteria. In particular, it was not patent nonsense in the very narrow way that we use the term here. I assumed that it was a good-faith oversight on the part of the deleting admin and, since out-of-process speedies are to be immediately restored and sent to XfD for community discussion, I did that. Then I backed out my creation of the AfD nomination in favor of some notes on history on the disambig's Talk page. I do not have strong feelings on the content of the article one way or the other but this detailed discussion of the relative merits of the page belongs on AfD. Rossami (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • The Sons of Eilaboun – Deletion endorsed. I felt this discussion was particularly tricky in that both sides bring up useful points on what amounts to a judgment call. The latitude that a closer has in disregarding the !votes of sock- and meat-puppets is wide. Even if they seem to be making cogent points, their on-wiki credibility and the credibility of their arguments is called into question by the tactics they use and the obfuscation that their participation creates--particularly if their arguments are not endorsed by actual contributors to the encyclopedia. In this DRV discussion itself, the discussion is split between those who felt there was an interpretable consensus for deletion (weighing policy and guideline concerns) and those who felt there was not. Inspecting the AfD itself, I feel as though it was a very close call that the closer made. I then viewed the content of the article and matched the !votes in the AfD to the facts of the article. Given the extremely poor condition of the article (it barely even asserted importance as it stood), the deletion arguments were and continue to be more persuasive, and the burden of proof lies on those wishing to challenge the procedure of the XfD closure. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Sons of Eilaboun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

horrible amount of sock-puppetering/meat-puppetering, however, please look at the merits of the film itself Huldra (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yuck, that's a mess. And it really pains me to think that I have to !vote overturn to no consensus here, when the closing admin had such a hard job. I'm guessing he ignored the !votes of all the SPAs in there, but some of them had actual good arguements (namely, User:JFCK and User:87.175.1.42), which is enough to tip the balance off of delete. Not nearly enough to swing all the way to keep, but enough for no consensus. I'd personally suggest giving the article some time to be worked on before nominating it again, but mostly likely another AfD should happen in a few months to check if a consensus has formed, if people still want it deleted. It'd also be nice to get a few established editors who know Arabic in to check sources and such in the meantime. Also, you probably should've discussed this with the closing admin before bringing it here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I still haven't seen any evidence that the film meets WP:MOVIE criteria. WP:COI also a problem, as evidenced in the AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with user Number 57 about WP:COI because there was no real proof, just an assumption. FriedenMann (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. FYI to Lifebaka, I allowed for a couple of the meatpuppeters making decent points but still interpreted overall consensus for the AFD was "delete". —Wknight94 (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – We aren't here to debate the merits of the film itself, only whether it meets our guidelines for inclusion. Right now, it doesn't. Perhaps after it's released we'll see some reviews or other coverage that would show how it's a notable film but, until then, it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/relist. I think that in all of the meatpuppetry, some refutations of the delete arguments were lost (such as DGG's "Al-Ahram is sufficient sourcing for notability of a film.") Other editors may have been discouraged from contributing due to the socks. MrPrada (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/relist I think MrPrada is right, many arguments were lost, and example waht user Arab48 wrote:
 "This film meets the following WP:MOVIE criterias:
 Other evidence of notability” 
 3.The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio. 

 The film also meets the following principles of WP:MOVIE: General principles 3 & 4 
 3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of film making. 
 4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive."
  • As well as some German newspaper, Aljazeera and Al-ahram. In the film website there are scans of Arabic newspapers as well ( and some have translation).
  • The award was ignored as well, Badil is a very respected organization, and it's award should not be ignored. FriedenMann (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with user Number 57 about WP:COI because there was no real proof, just an assumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FriedenMann (talk • contribs) 07:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/relist I think The film meets the WP:MOVIE criterias, and should be recreated. NakoBalaKhof (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
More