Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyblade timeline

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

The result was no consensus; default to keep. - Philippe 20:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade timeline

Is a timeline revealing a plot for a series, is most fancruft and serves little encyclopedic value to wikipedia Angel Emfrbl (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say it serves plenty of encyclopedic value to fans of the show and manga. Ford MF (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other timleline articles - fan-driven content that makes no claims to real-world significance; non-notable & in-universe. Fails our fiction guideline (Please make your voice heard on fiction-related topics!). Eusebeus (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a fiction guideline. That's a proposal, and a highly debated one unlikely (if the talkpage is any evidence) to gain consensus. Ford MF (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:FICT, WP:N, and it is mostly OR and original synthesis. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's no more original synthesis than any other plot summary. Also, your argument is that "similar articles have been deleted in the past"? Ford MF (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is OS. It is not straight plot summary, its synthesis and making guesses. Also, it is rude to just run around and jump on everyone's deletes. Just make your keep and leave it at that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See under: wiktionary:debate. Ford MF (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume there was a point there, but as I do like to follow WP:CIVIL, I'll refrain from giving my response. Too bad you have so little confidence in your keep reasons that you have to attack the deletes to try to make it better. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questioning delete rationales that are iffy or spurious isn't "attacking", it's what is done at AfD. You're not exactly new here. Ford MF (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a time line, it is simply a series of tables listing "attacks" which fails WP:FICT in any of its incarnations. --Farix (Talk) 01:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't really tell what this article wants to accomplish in the first place. If it was a clearcut fictional timeline, I'd likely !vote delete for failing WP:NOT#PLOT. Now it's just an extreme in-universe mess of statistics (WP:WAF and WP:NOT#STATS). – sgeureka ^t•c 06:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability criteria for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Farix, and because (IMHO) this page looks like little more than an excuse to show off what someone can do with tables. —Dino guy 1000 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as unoriginal article. It is hard to fail something that totally lacks any consensus. Consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on Beyblade. Plenty of editor efforts underway to improve this article. Sufficient reader interest as well. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete either. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no consensus even on a preliminary basis of what do do with fiction timelines--I see them like lists--alternative ways of presentation that can be extremely useful. For general readers, often a better and more compact source of information than other ways of showing the plot. The fans may not think it necessary, but Wikipedia isn't being written for them. DGG (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is plenty of consensus that these articles fail WP:PLOT. Doceirias (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that there is not only no consensus at all these these articles fail "plot", but there are even serious challenges to whether or not plot has consensus as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that one list – a timeline – is justifiable for works of art that pass WP:FICT, as Beyblade certainly does. I echo DGG's point about viewing this as simply another (user-friendly and intuitive) way at presenting material included elsewhere. Skomorokh 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks more like a character list than a timeline - with characters listed by their appearances. Many of characters in the list have articles - and not just the ones linked in the navigational template (example) and all of the "teams" have articles. The list therefore seems to serve the reasonable purpose of navigation. Personally I'm not sure if all the teams and characters that have articles should do, most seem to be poorly written and unreferenced but since they do have a list for navigation seems reasonable. Guest9999 (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a "character list", it is still unnecessary as it is redundant to List of Beyblade characters. Two are not needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Skomorokh/DGG..it's a list and sourcing should be on main article page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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