Deletion of Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination)

Comment: As others have said above, this is an obvious example of |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: A textbook case of |synthesis and |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NOR)

Comment: Useful information about the subject. Timelines of fictional events are no more |OR than timelines of nonfictional events. You don't need a source to say that a certain article was published in the New York Times on such and such a date, the article is the source
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as verifiable and notable. Because it does not offer an original thesis, it is not original research. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for sub-articles and Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT|cruft is never a valid argument. Providing a timeline based on sources does NOT advance an original argument. "Cruft" is an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Verdatum&diff=176061328&oldid=169950712 unacceptable argument that cannot be taken seriously. The films can serve as verifiable evidence. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for sub or spinoff articles. Which is acceptable on Wikipedia. The films can be watched in the real world and thus it has notability to real humans who watch and care about them. It is encyclopedic per the First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Aliens and Predator. The film articles need secondary sources, a timeline associated with those articles, as sub or spinoff article, only requires primary sources. A timeline does not need analysis. THAT would be original research. real world context is obvious. Just because something is obvious is not a reason for us not to have an article on it. But it isn't original research and is verfiable. Then you're arguing for a merge and redirect without deletion per the GFDL. There is no reason to outright delete the article and in the worst case it would be merged and redirected without deletion. A legitimate search term in the worst case scenario would be redirected without deletion. We only must delete copy vios, personal attacks, and hoaxes. A timeline of a significant franchise is consistent, per the First pillar, with a science fiction encyclopedia. Plus, "Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT|cruft" is never considered an academic argument. Actually, the article is completely encyclopedic and "cruft" is a non argument. Wikipedia ''is'' the place for syntheiszing plot summaries of film series. The article passes , , and . Per our First pillar, Wikipedia ''is'' a science fictional encyclopedia. It is NOT just a general interest encyclopedia, as the First pillar clearly states it is "general encyclopedia, '''specialized encyclopedias''', and almanacs." The mission of Wikipedia according to the overwhelming majority of its contriubutors its to contain articles of this nature which is appropriate for Wikipedia per our policies and traditions. Per Wikipedia:Five pillars, it is encyclopedic per our First pillar of one of our most core policies, i.e. it concerns an incredibly notable franchise and presents verifiable information in clear, organized, and discriminate manner. It is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction or Aliens or Predator or all three. There are over http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-8488394-2599959?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=science+fiction+encyclopedia 1,000 published specialized science fiction encyclopedias; thus there is no reason for a paperless encyclopedia not to share elements with those. Thus, I am citing a specific POLICY, in first the FIRST PILLAR of that policy when I note that it is an element of a specialized encyclopedia. As for any other possible personal interpretations of other policies that may question the reason for inclusion of this article, then apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, as removing this article "prevents" editors "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia." The article is a legitimate search term created by a good faith editor and defended by at least one other good faith editor. In even a worse case scenario we would redirect the article without deleting it. Deletion, which removes editors' contribution history from the public eye, is an extreme last resort reserved for hoaxes, personal attacks, copyright violations, etc. We do not delete articles when a redirect exist and since we have articles and Alien and Predator series, we have such redirects. Saying sources do not exist or the articles' lack of sources does not mean they do not exist. Considering how much coverage the film series has had in Fangoria, Starlog, et al, I have a hard time believing that given enough time and research the article could not be better sourced, but even so, sub-articles are permitted to rely on primary sources. I can never take an argument that has a word like "cruft" seriously. It adds nothing to any conversations, just as an vulgar or unacademic word does and distracts from whatever other merits the argument may or may not have. The article is necessary for providing the chronology in clear and encyclopedic chronological context. Alien and Predator are not part of Star Wars, so Wookipedia has no relevance to this article. And even so we have plenty of overlap with other wikis, which is fine, vecause we are the most comprehensive overall wiki. We are here to write a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that is the sum total of human knowledge, that combines general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs. There is no solid basis not to have this article; there is no benefit to our goals by deleting it. We do, however, have potential gain by keeping it. The topic is hardly "trivial". It concerns the context of a blockbuster and notable film series. It presents the subject in a coherent and discrmininate manner. All this time wasted trying to delete good faith articles could and should be spent finding sources and improving them. Articles that are not hoaxes, not libel, not copy vios, etc. should not be deleted. Can we collect reliable sources? Yes. Should the article be kept? Yes. Is this article representative in part of what Wikipedia is? Yes. A timeline presents material that may or may not be spread out in a bunch of articles in a far more clear and concise manner and therefore serves a valuable purpose. I would be shocked if you cannot find any reviews of the films that do not discuss the chronology and timeline in some manner. All of these are reasons for inclusion. There is no reason for deletion that benefits anyone. The article passes the Five pillars and Ignore all rules and I see nothing reasonably convincing otherwise. So in other words, you're actually arguing that the article must be kept. Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant keep after all. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Gore_III_%288th_nomination%29&diff=193037477&oldid=193034516 Notability is inherited. Sub-articles only need primary sources. There is NO consensus that notability is not inherited. Sub-articles like this one only need primary sources and notability is definitely inherited in this case. Every article on Wikipedia does not have to be GA or FA status. As has been established in discussion on Plot, many have argued that sub-articles or spinoff articles are not the same as a regular or mother article. All encyclopedia articles synthesize, whether they do so from primary or secondary evidence. Anything that uses more than one source, synthesizes from those sources. That is what encyclopedias do. Notability ''is'' inherited from article on the subjects. I have a hard time doubting with all the publications and reviews out there that published sources do not touch upon the timeline in some manner. The article does indeed merit a Wikipedia article of its own. A spinoff article only needs to be based on primary sources. The article passes Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)|Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:Notability|Notability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is#PLOT|What Wikipedia is. As for the tone, that can be fixed by editing. The movies are reliable sources. Notability is unquestionable here. "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the ''Encyclopedia''. The article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. There are no legitimate reasons to delete this particular article which is notable and verifiable. Which is not needed on sub or spinoff articles. Sincerely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:IS)