Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series

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. There is not really a solid consensus at this time between whether or not to merge, versus delete, with a weak minority of keep. Therefore, "merge" discussion should take place further, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series

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

Re-telling of the plot in timeline form in violation of WP:JUSTPLOT. Redundant WP:CONTENTFORK of main series article Foundation series, which meets the general notability guideline but this element of the series does not. Prod declined in support of merge, but there is nothing to merge that isn't already covered in a more encyclopedic way in the main series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the verifiable information in this list is already in the main article. Totally redundant. --Anthem of joy (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The comments above are false. For example, the first fact stated - the birth of Hari Seldon in 11988 is documented and discussed in detail in numerous reliable sources such as The Role of Science Fiction: Asimov & Vonnegut which is a critical analysis. The table of such dates might sensible be merged into the main article Foundation series as this information is not included in that article. There is already a merge proposal flagged on the article and so this AFD nomination is disruptive to that and contrary to our editing policy. The article should therefore be kept to allow ordinary editing and discussion to proceed. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing disruptive here as the article had already been prodded for several days before an IP put the merge flag. When an article is deprodded the next step is the formal deletion proposal, and no actual merge debate had started so I can't see what would be "disrupted". On the contrary this process can still result in a merge, so I don't see the point of your voting "keep" only to propose a merge later, when you could just have voted "merge" here.
Content-wise, all these dates are just unsignificant trivia and most of them are already present in others articles (the birthdate of Hari Seldon is already mentionned in the character's article, and anything significant regarding it should be discussed there. The other dates are mostly "such novel happened then", so no need for a separate article when all of this is already mentionned in the general Foundation plot summary or in the individual novel articles). Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the series article. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Andrevan@ 06:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then maybe redirect to plot section of main article. With all verifiable information in the main article, this one becomes redundant. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is a violation of WP:NOTJUSTPLOT and does not meet WP:GNG. All entries here are trivia and/or redundant, so I don't think there is anything significant to merge.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the first comment appears to be mistaken, in that the Foundation series article contains a real-life timeline of the books' and stories' publication, but does not contain this fictional timeline. There's no reason to delete this outright when it would be appropriate per WP:NNC in a clearly notable parent topic. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Given that the series has been analyzed and reviewed over decades, there's no reason to think that there aren't reliable sources for a fictional timeline of this sort - and it would be a good fit into Foundation series, if only as a compliment to the true life timeline. Pare it down to the highlights, or include discussion about the timeline in with the section on the fiction's structure, and I think you'd be fine. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial plot detail. Overall, fictional time stamps don't matter at all when informing readers of the plot. The handful of times where a time stamp matter, it can be done in prose and I expect it is already present there (if it's not there, again, I assume it to be trivial). – sgeureka ^t•c 07:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume that the subject of the article (the timeline) meets the general notability guideline. As stated in the nomination, it is an unnecessary content fork composed of a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context, which makes it redundant and irrelevant. The timeline itself is presented in a non-encyclopedic format, using the fictional timeline rather than real chronology as a framework, and it is a redundant non-concise plot summary so there is no reason to keep it around since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation series, and merge content at editorial discretion. The subject doesn't meet the guidelines for a standalone article, but it is clear that Foundation series is an appropriate redirect target. Unlike what is suggested above it is not clear at all that a in-universe timeline is devoid of encyclopedic interest, and WP:NNC should be followed. Timelines are not uncommon among wikipedia articles, and even a in-universe timeline can be highly valuable in order to present a clear chronology of the plot, which as in the case of series of several work can be very complicated. As long as it does not lists every details but only major ones, it serves the legitimate encyclopedic purpose to provide a clear, concise plot to the reader. In any case, the merit of including the timeline in Foundation series is not the subject of this AFD and is up to editorial discretion. Cenarium (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the series article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a matter of it being notable content (note its a 7 year old article never before questioned like this). Whether it can be merged into the main foundation article is a separate question, but there are many cases of timelines being separate articles on wikipedia when useful, e.g,. Chronology of the Doctor Who universe, Chronology of Star Wars (survivor of a few AfDs as no consensus). OF course, the Foundation is eminently more notable than sci-fi crap like Doctor Who and Star Wars!!11--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:35, 24 May 2011 (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.