Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wing Commander 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 Merge with Wing Commander (franchise). Prodego ^talk 17:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Commander timeline

This fictional timeline has no reliable primary sources and reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the game from which it is derived. Gavin Collins 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that it provides no relevance to the series. Additionally, it provides no information except that from the single source it is derived from. --Sesameball^Talk 20:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 22:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wing Commander. While short and not having much in the way of future reference, there's nothing inherently "bad" about this information, and can probably fit as prose in the main article just fine. SnowFire 04:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the merger proposal. Without primary sources to verify the content of this article, copy and pasting this material elsewhere does not improve it. --Gavin Collins 09:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Wing Commander, and I suspect neither are you. Are you saying that this page is false and/or a hoax? I rather doubt that. The source is obviously the games (and books, if any) themselves as compiled by random people who'd played them, just like the rest of Wikipedia. It's additionally backed by a fansite's version. Any factual statement sourced to the game passes WP:V in flying colors (though obviously commentary would be required to come from secondary sources). SnowFire 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assume good faith, without citations such as footnotes, this article does not pass WP:V.--Gavin Collins 14:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we mark the text as unsourced when merged and let editors who know more about the topic find the sources or correct the text... or you could do the research yourself.... -Harmil 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wing Commander (franchise). The timeline definitely aides in putting the various games and novels in a chronological perspective in relation to each other. The timeline is written up in the "Victory Streak", one of the manuals which comes with the Wing Commander III game. That is definitely a primary source, but to source a timeline on the series itself, it is perfectly adequate. There is nothing in WP:V which says that primary sources can never be used. WP:SELFPUB indicates that something sourced by primary sources should not really be in a separate article, and so my vote to merge this, but to say that it fails WP:V is a gross exaggeration. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Snowfire. References can be added, and the information can be tagged as unreferenced if necessary too. Just because something should be improved or referenced does not mean it should be deleted. Rray 02:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think if it hadded some references added (a 10 minute job) then a merge would be better. I don't think it's worth a deletion though as it contains some good data. --businessman332211 04:24, 10 November 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.