Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Phantasy Star series

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See talk page for expanded rationale. A Train^talk 12:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Phantasy Star series

Procedural nomination. Prod contested after deletion. Reason for proposed deletion given:

In-universe timeline of a series of video games, based on primary sources only. Fails WP:NOT for plot summaries and the fact that Wikipedia articles should be written from an out-of-universe perspective (which is tough to do for a timeline).

—bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per criterion 7 of WP:UNENC. -Panser Born- (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Daniel5127 | Talk 04:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Under this logic we can't cover any serious timeline. This makes Wikipedia poorer and I can't see how this list lacks by not mentioning irrelevant "out of universe" references. User:Dimadick
- His logic isn't really applicable to real timelines. Delete. ' 08:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fogeltje 08:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being an indiscriminate collection of plot information for the games. Nothing in the article is sourced ( or apparently sourceable reliably). Cannot possibly pass the Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis part of WP:NOT. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - per WP:SS, WP:NOT#PAPER. - Peregrine Fisher 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. MSJapan 18:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phantasy Star, as per WP:SS, and request that regular editors clean it up. No need for it to be so large. Madman bum and angel 19:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (well, I'm the original nominator, so I'm allowed to say "per nom" here :-) ). Fram 19:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, sorry about that. For some reason I had it in my head that it was prodded by an anon; I would have cited you as the nominator if I had known. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the appropriate page for cleanup. Jtrainor 19:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't violate WP:NOT. As stated in the policy: A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. None of the other reasons listed are criteria for deletion. NeoFreak 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the preceding sentence Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot which this article clearly fails - Peripitus (Talk) 10:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at the top of the piece again — how does it differ in any way from, say, the Star Trek universe and Star Wars universe timelines? They're virtually identical in format, with real-world context galore (or as much as can be utilized). But there really isn't enough there in the way of scope and comparison, versus Star Trek — they're two entirely different beasts. Forty years, six TV series, and eleven feature films, versus a mere four video games. And all of the above-mentioned examples are separate articles from their respective "primary" Wikipedia entries, and each large enough to warrant it. Quite simply, it has about as much sourcing as we can reasonably expect, given the far smaller quantity of hard material compared to other universes, which are the cardinal games in the series...the dates are the dates are the dates. --The Bandsaw Vigilante 14:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not violate the WP:NOT test. Additionally, there are other fictional universe timelines on Wikipedia which are as large as the Phantasy Star one, and which are typically accepted without comment. Further, all of the entries are dated strictly according to in-universe information found within the games themselves. --The Bandsaw Vigilante 04:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how the existence of crap justifies more crap. ' 11:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Grow up, please, and keep this on-topic. --The Bandsaw Vigilante 14:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No personal attacks, and it's entirely on topic. AFDs are not votes. Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOR and can never be written from anything other than a in universe perspective. Whisp e ring 15:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absence of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE's real-world context and sourced analysis makes it a no-keep. MURGH ^disc. 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This fits "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." - Peregrine Fisher 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large it may be, but to you think this justifies omission of reliably sourced analysis in real-world context? MURGH ^disc. 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So as soon as we have an article on a subject (even if haldf of it is "fan problems" or "trivia"), then we can have a second article which is nothing but a plot summary? This seems to be a very loose interpretation of the "aspect of a larger topic" line, and would make the whole WP:NOT for plot summaries rather toothless. Fram 05:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the subject. Phantasy Star is subject where it applies. - Peregrine Fisher 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why aren't short plot summaries in the three articles, or a plot summary in the main article, enough (remove the "fan controversies" section and you have more than enough place...) What in this timeline makes it indispensable for the understanding of the articles about the games? Making a blanket statement that it applies in this case is a bit too easy.Fram 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all sourcable with the games themselves, which is pretty much all that is possible with any fiction. Merging into anything would make it overly long. Fiction must have plot summaries. This article does not just cover a single game; it covers a long SERIES of very influential games. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Voretus 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at the different Phantasy Star articles, I don't get the impression that merging would be impossible at all: the articles are not too long anyway, already have a plot summary, and have many fan and trivia sections which can and should be removed. Having said that: it can be sourced to primary sources, but WP:WAF and other policy and guideline pages make it clear that articles should be based on secondary sources, written from an out-of-universe perspective, and not be solely a plot summary. I haven't seen any good argument why this timeline is necessary except that every plot summary can be defended with the "part of a larger subject" clause, no matter if it is necessary and if the article is any use in helping the understanding of the series. Fram 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that the Phantasy Star series is over all notable, I'm satisfied with that, and given that the series itself has a connected storyline, this kind of page is appropriate to cover the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 16:56, 11 April 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.