Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers 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 - 'til all are one! Proto::type 10:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers timeline

I understand the editor's intent to serve the Transformers universes page, but frankly the complexity of the franchise, as well as the immortality of the characters, renders a timeline null. For the most part it would look like an ugly piece of fancruft. Wiki-newbie 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trust me, Transformers continuity is an absoulte mess and Wikipedia isn't the place to untangle that with original research. Also, WP:NOT a plot summary. Interrobamf 20:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my own nom. Oh, and it's not a mess, just a multiverse. Wiki-newbie 20:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Marvel UK and Marvel US continuity situation would disagree with that. =) Interrobamf 23:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T DELETE The transformer's multiverse is indeed very tangled. That's why the collective power of Wikipedia is the best solution to creating something close to seamless. ----aevanloon
- Except that they aren't meant to be meshed together in the first place, and any attempts to mash them together into one single timeline is pure original research. Interrobamf 23:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOR -- Whpq 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I'm inclined to keep this because it is undoubtably something that fans will be interested in and this isn't so detailed as to become cumbersome nor is it so detailed that it is part of the the mess Interrobamf references. As for original research... the article doesn't reference a theory or method of solution; an oriignal idea; define a new term; presumes new defintions of pre-existing terms; introduce a argument w/o source; introduces an analysis/synthesis/or neologism. Thus, I don't see how it fits that criteria. The person did document it (although I'd move the reference explanations to the bottom.) Also, this issue will become more relevant with the announcement of the new Transformer movie next year.Balloonman 21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Based on fans below, will revise to DeleteBalloonman 06:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a fan. I'm not interested in something that essentially amounts to fanfiction. It doesn't seem like a mess because, so far, it has only taken information from one continuity. When it includes the other ten continuities or so, it'll be ugly, especially to fans who are aware of the differences. It's original research because it cobbles together different continuities into one, which isn't indicated by anything. Interrobamf 23:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I am a fan, and this is worse than pointless -- it's flat out wrong in several plces. It tries to reconstruct several different timelines that don't really fit together, and the new TF movie will not draw on much of this at all. The collective power of Wikipedia wouldn't be focused on this...the best that could be done is to see what happens if it gets expanded. Or work on it in userspace. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft, original research, belongs on a fansite. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know where this belongs? On a Wiki that's dedicated solely to Transformers... although since it still pretty much counts as OR, it would probably get deleted from there as well. DS 16:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't want it. Interrobamf 19:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft. Rever e ndG 05:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transformers. Yankee Rajput 23:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:OR - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 22 November 2006 (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.