Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline (3rd nomination)

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) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline

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

I'm not sure how this survived the last AFD when the few keep arguments either misinterpreted or misapplied community policy. WP:V states that articles without third-party sources do not belong in Wikipedia, so arguments that primary sources are sufficient go against community consensus. A few others said that independent sources do exist for this article, but all I see are the books themselves, spliced in with some original research from the literary works that inspired the books. After several years... worst case this remains something that fails WP:V and WP:N due to a lack of third-party sourcse, and best case a WP:CONTENTFORK that just re-reports information from the main article in an original manner. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete - I really cannot see a valid reason to keep this. Yes, Moore's comics and the film are notable in their own respects. But that does not make an internal timeline notable by extention. Yes, a deconstruction of what Moore used/borrowed/built on/plundered can be relavent to the central topic and should be part of the article on the comics. But it should be built on secondary sources - critircal reviews of the work and/or interviews with Morre about why he picked what he did - not on the primary sources of Moore's work and his source material. - J Greb (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for many reasons: mostly unreferenced/based on original research, what references there are are to primary sources; on a fictional subject with no evidence of real-world notability. Fictional timelines are usually deleted, with a few rare exceptions for particularly notable/well-referenced cases; I see no reason to make this one of them. Robofish (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a plot summary in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Given the article title, it can either be a fictional timeline and always violate NOT#PLOT; or it can be a publication timeline, which however is already presented in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Nothing salvagable. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons, Sadads (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the rationale of the nomination. The article is original research by synthesis, it's a plot-only description of a fictional work and the topic does not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline since there are no reliable third-party sources that address the subject directly in detail. Jfgslo (talk) 15:10, 29 January 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.