Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend of Zelda 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 delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Zelda Timeline

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

Violates WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NOR (there is no official timeline for Zelda except the release of games. There are a few remarks by officials and lots of speculation out there) and even if sources found WP:UNDUE given that it even if RSes are found for this timeline, other sources will contradict it. ∞陣内 Jinnai 17:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect (or just simply redirect, whichever) to Zelda (series)#History; this is all copied from the Zelda Wikia, so we're not losing much at all if deleted. We already have a documented history of the Zelda series here, not to mention there is also Universe of The Legend of Zelda and Characters in The Legend of Zelda series. --MuZemike 18:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not voting here, I just thought I should point out The Official Zelda Timeline. Take from that what you will. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Again, there are other sources that contradict that timeline. Saying we should just completely ignore those or mention them as a minor statement when there are far more of them even by RSes gives WP:UNDUE weight to that timeline simply because it has the stampt of "official". Wikipedia isn't here to be a corperate promoter.∞陣内 Jinnai 19:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh snap, that is a damn insightful comment. Once you've forced your product into popular culture, you don't get to control how it's perceived. BTW, I don't know if a useful article full of real-world perspective can be made with this name, but this one is clearly not helpful. Delete. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Ah, I get it! I assumed that this came from this (mainly because it looked copypasted and that it said "The Legend of Zelda Wiki" on top and "This Wiki is in progress" on the bottom), but now I think I understand a bit better about the background. Basically, the "official timeline" has nothing to do with this article; instead, nearly all of the content was in fact copypasted from the plot sections of all of our Zelda game articles. Please compare:

While the "Timeline" section is not copied from anywhere, it's completely unreferenced and looks like some conclusions someone came to after analyzing all the plotlines or possibly from looking at the new "official timeline" that surfaced. In any case, this is likely original research.

I still stand by my recommendation for deletion, as there is nothing being added here that we don't already have. Given the new information from the "official timeline" and the discussions that have been ongoing at Talk:The Legend of Zelda (including quite a few calls that the "Chronology" section needs to be rewritten), any developments that come forth from the official timeline should be directed there. --MuZemike 22:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to series article, revamp Template:The Legend of Zelda to incorporate the games in chronological order. --Teancum (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More of a discussion for Template talk:The Legend of Zelda. One can say that it already is in chronological order, i.e. in the order in which all the games were released; that might still be preferable over rearranging the games in the navbox in "plot order". --MuZemike 01:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not only is this unsourced but Nintendo in fact did recently release an actual timeline and it directly contradicts the content of this article.[1]. One example would be that the timeline in the article has no time splits while the newly release timeline by Nintendo has 3. So not only is this article violating WP:OR the content is verifiablbly wrong so a merge is not necessary. A redirect to the series article to a section mentioning the new official timeline however may be a good idea.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Revised vote, see info below.) Keep - An official timeline has been released now. So, rather than deleting this, it should be re-written using that, removing any unsourced info, original research, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We aren't here as corperate promoters.∞陣内Jinnai 22:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - At no point was anything like that said or inferred (by me anyways.) I'm just saying an official source now exists out there. The official source can be used to weed out the other sources that people claim contradict each other. Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify and say that I like the idea of this article. It's actual state is quite terrible right now. But I keep by "keep" stance; an article of this could exist, the sources are out there. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that everything in the article right now is either copypasta or OR. Even if you wanted a completely separate article on a timeline, you would have to completely start over. --MuZemike 01:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. In addition to what you said above, I was under the impression that this was some sort of long-running, long-debated article. (Not sure if I'm thinking of a different timeline article or what.) This was created a week or two ago, merely by copy-pasting from some wikia or something. No thought or work put into it. I still think that an article like this could exist, but I now believe we'd/they'd be better off deleting this mess, and recreating it from scratch, if that were to happen. Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this equates to a vote of "Delete without prejudice", which I agree with. Maybe there could be a decent article here, discussing the real-world debate from reliable sources, etc., but this ain't it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's rationale. There's no extensive coverage of the topic in reliable source, so it's not notable and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2012 (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.