Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonlance timeline (2nd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonlance timeline

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is written with an in-universe perspective, it's referenced exclusively with primary sources with no secondary sources. There are also no third-party sources to verify notability. The article does not meet the general notability guideline or the manual of style for fiction-related subjects, being an unneeded content fork with no real-world notability. I believe that it falls into reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Bob A (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to annex.wikia.com 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a summary of this page should be merged into Dragonlance. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I really don't know what one would merge to [Dragonlance]] except maybe Dragonlance timeline#Age of Starbirth, but since there already is Dragonlance#Fictional history of about the same length, I don't think it's necessary to merge anything anymore. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Annex. ----Divebomb is not British 20:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most of article is sourced, even if to primary sources. Would otherwise rather redirect to Dragonlance than delete, as any independent sources found in the future could be added. BOZ (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nomination. plot-only article violating the "no in-universe" policy, there are no third-party sources and thus no notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is not just a matter of finding the right sources. The problem is this is a WP:CONTENTFORK of the plot already covered at the main Dragonlance article. Which sources about the franchise belong at the main article and which sources belong here? The answer is the exact same sources, indicating we shouldn't have two articles about the same thing here. And this article should be the one to go, since it's exclusively about the plot, which is what wikipedia is WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2010 (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.