269:- The legitimate problem is that the article is written in too much of an in-universe style. (I'm surprised that it didn't get tagged as such when Gavin started adding templates to it.) At any rate, we should err on the side of keeping stuff if it's "borderline" rather than erring on the side of deleting it.
329:
No, you misunderstand me. When I said that the information in the article was culled from the official timeline, I meant it literally. FASA produced and published actual timelines of key events in the
Shadowrun canon. In fact, until I found and started editing the page, it was a verbatium copy of one
402:
of original research. You need to come to a complete halt with AFDs until you actually understand the policies. At any rate, as I already stated, there has been about a year's worth of work done on the article since it was a plagiarised copy of official material.
282:
386:
with the actual policy. Synthesis is taking sources and making a conclusion from them that is not made by any of the sources, while plagiarism is using material without crediting its source.
454:"Original research based on original research" wouldn't be original, now, would it? I don't think this article does meet WP's notability criteria, but I can't vote for the nomination.
228:
It's not original research as there have been several time lines produced by
Shadowrun's various publishers, from which the data on that page is culled. I'll add references to the page.
155:
125:
442:-- if you do just what you said, you haven't "forked" anything, just summarized an aspect of a work, and you haven't introduced a point of view anywhere.
334:, but OR isn't even on the map here. It cannot possibly be OR, because until about a year ago, it was a word for word copy of the primary source.
98:
93:
102:
61:
85:
17:
302:
298:
512:
55:
36:
494:
482:
470:
458:
446:
407:
390:
362:
338:
317:
313:. For without secondary sources, it cannot be proven timelines of fictional events are not original research. --
289:
273:
257:
244:
232:
220:
162:
144:
67:
511:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
89:
354:? If so then is that not an admission that the article content is a type of original research refered to as
301:, which is a work of fiction which contains a fictional time line. If I were to create an article entitled "
49:
81:
73:
423:. It's probably overly detailed, and could use more sourcing and a less in-universe style. But it's
436:
It's not original research to state things that can be verified by anyone reading a primary source.
455:
359:
314:
281:. Not original research (something that has been a point of contention with Gavin). This page (
159:
141:
439:
331:
310:
203:
178:
133:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
434:
says, since that would be a perfectly good use of primary sources according to the policy.
467:
240:. It's not a history of the future, it's not fiction, and it's not original research. --
136:
and just too in universe to be classed as anything other than original research based on
305:", and then to list all the dates and events in my own words, that would effectively be
443:
404:
387:
335:
286:
241:
229:
491:
383:
355:
431:
427:
375:
306:
173:
137:
119:
351:
270:
479:
254:
466:- as per many above and timelines are encyclopedic and useful tools.
505:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
132:
This history of the future is litterally unfinished, but also
285:) gives a long debate on fictional world timeline articles.--
283:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Star Fleet
Universe timeline
452:
Abandon this AFD and get someone else to relist it properly
253:"Not fiction"? I'd better re-write my history essay. :-)
330:
of them. I could understand criticising the article for
115:
111:
107:
430:. Your example shows that you don't understand what
297:This is an interesting question. Take for instance
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
515:). No further edits should be made to this page.
378:, and I think you're confusing the text in the
8:
478:. This is notable background to the game.
154:: This debate has been included in the
350:So you are saying the article has been
303:Timeline of The Shape of Things to Come
7:
24:
374:. You're still misunderstanding
309:, a type usually refered to as a
156:list of science fiction deletions
438:It also has nothing to do with
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
495:13:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
483:11:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
471:15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
459:14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
447:14:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
408:10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
391:12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
363:07:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
339:12:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
318:11:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
299:The Shape of Things to Come
290:01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
274:00:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
258:11:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
245:23:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
233:23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
221:23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
195:21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
163:21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
145:21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
68:04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
532:
508:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
48:(non-admin closure).
398:Plagiarism is the
82:Shadowrun timeline
74:Shadowrun timeline
428:original research
307:original research
287:Donovan Ravenhull
165:
138:original research
66:
523:
510:
216:
212:
209:
206:
191:
187:
184:
181:
150:
123:
105:
64:
58:
54:
52:
34:
531:
530:
526:
525:
524:
522:
521:
520:
519:
513:deletion review
506:
214:
210:
207:
204:
189:
185:
182:
179:
96:
80:
77:
62:
56:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
529:
527:
518:
517:
500:
498:
497:
490:- as above. --
485:
473:
461:
449:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
400:exact opposite
393:
366:
365:
342:
341:
321:
320:
292:
276:
263:
262:
261:
260:
248:
247:
235:
223:
166:
130:
129:
76:
71:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
528:
516:
514:
509:
503:
502:
501:
496:
493:
489:
486:
484:
481:
477:
474:
472:
469:
465:
462:
460:
457:
456:Percy Snoodle
453:
450:
448:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
426:
422:
419:
418:
409:
406:
401:
397:
394:
392:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
361:
360:Gavin Collins
357:
353:
349:
346:
345:
344:
343:
340:
337:
333:
328:
325:
324:
323:
322:
319:
316:
315:Gavin Collins
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
291:
288:
284:
280:
277:
275:
272:
268:
265:
264:
259:
256:
252:
251:
250:
249:
246:
243:
239:
236:
234:
231:
227:
224:
222:
219:
218:
217:
199:
196:
194:
193:
192:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
160:Gavin Collins
157:
153:
149:
148:
147:
146:
143:
142:Gavin Collins
139:
135:
127:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
75:
72:
70:
69:
65:
63:Contributions
59:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
507:
504:
499:
487:
475:
463:
451:
435:
424:
420:
399:
395:
379:
371:
347:
326:
311:content fork
294:
278:
266:
237:
225:
202:
201:
197:
177:
176:
169:
168:
151:
131:
45:
43:
31:
28:
468:Web Warlock
352:plagiarised
226:Speedy keep
200:per below.
198:Speedy keep
134:non-notable
440:WP:POVFORK
332:WP:COPYVIO
444:Pinball22
405:EvilCouch
388:Pinball22
356:synthesis
336:EvilCouch
267:Weak Keep
242:UsaSatsui
230:EvilCouch
492:Raistlin
126:View log
396:Comment
380:example
372:Comment
348:Comment
327:Comment
295:Comment
99:protect
94:history
384:WP:SYN
170:Delete
103:delete
432:WP:OR
376:WP:OR
174:WP:OR
120:views
112:watch
108:links
51:Pablo
16:<
488:Keep
476:Keep
464:Keep
421:Keep
358:? --
279:Keep
271:Rray
238:Keep
172:per
152:Note
116:logs
90:talk
86:edit
57:Talk
46:keep
480:Axl
425:not
382:in
255:Axl
213:Fan
188:Fan
158:.--
140:.--
124:– (
215:24
211:AR
208:SC
205:NA
190:24
186:AR
183:SC
180:NA
118:|
114:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
60:|
128:)
122:)
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.