Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorverse 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honorverse timeline

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

The article consist of synthesis of published material that advances a position, it does not have references or third-party sources to verify notability, the chronology does not meet the general notability guideline, it's an unneeded indiscriminate collection of information and I don't see how this article would fit the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. There is no need to move anything from this article because the chronology is already covered in the main article. This is an unnecessary content fork written with an in-universe perspective that falls into the criteria of reasons for deletion in my opinion. Jfgslo (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly in-universe fan information, are there any wikis to transwiki to? Sadads (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advances a position?? Debresser (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research that is taken from multiple sources to create something that doesn't exist in said sources, such as creating a timeline that is not mentioned in reliable sources but that it's created with the information available. I did not want to call the text original research directly, but it might be. Jfgslo (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plot-only description of a fictional work. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to honorverse.wikia.com 65.93.13.216 (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main Honorverse article... except that this one is plot only, which is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Improve the main article with due weight on the plot. Don't create forks that re-present the same information in an original way. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per the above. Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent nomination. I can't add anything except to say that it is 100% correct. Reyk _YO! 00:29, 6 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.