Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 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. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator timeline

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of Terminator (franchise) that is only a plot summary, which is what Wikipedia is not. See WP:NOT#PLOT. No third-party sources to WP:verify notability of the timeline. Lots of third-party sources briefly summarize the movie plots, but that doesn't justify a WP:CONTENTFORK for various sequences of events in the movies based on reception of the movie at large. (If someone asks to make policy exceptions for this timeline, I'll show that these timelines are typically deleted if/when nominated. But I think most people know that by now.) Shooterwalker (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Terminator is so spaghettified that there can be no timeline, espeically with the TV series, novels, and comics thrown in. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:PLOT; not appropriate to have a stand-alone article consisting solely of in-universe detail. I think it is a plausible redirect, though, and I have seen coverage about time travel paradoxes in the Terminator films, which could be a stand-alone topic. This book has a chapter about the paradox, and this book has some similar coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no references and it's an unnecessary content fork. There are no reliable third-party sources to presume notability so the subject also doesn't meet the general notability guideline. The content of the article is appropriate material for a fansite, not Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 07:28, 2 March 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.