Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Jin Yong's novels

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Jin Yong's novels

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

All material appears to be original research, the article has no inline citations for verifiability and there doesn't seem to be third-party sources to verify notability. The external links are apparently for a Chinese forum, not a reliable website and the same applies to the two notes used within the article. I don't think that this article meets the general notability guideline or the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. This appears to be mostly an indiscriminate collection of information and an unnecessary content fork primarily written with an in-universe perspective. I believe it meets the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this really is a Wikipedia article in any way, shape or form Sadads (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is about fictional timelines taken from Chinese sword-fighting novels. Therefore, apart from the novel, there can exist few other third-party sources, unless you count in those on other forums and discussion pages. As for the lack of inline citations, this is because I have previously separated parts of this timeline into segments (see the templates transcluded into the article such as this one) and thus all citations to the novel has been moved to those templates. I hope this clears some things up. No News ! 02:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Newfraferz87 is right that third party sources are hardly available. I don't think the article fits into any of the six types listed at WP:IINFO. The article is a compilation of the plot summaries of all the novels, with the events listed in chronological order, therefore it's not exactly content forking. I think it's useful in helping readers of the novels understand the flow of events better. Again, quotations and information extracted directly from the primary source (the work of fiction, i.e. the novel) do not constitute original research. Therefore, I think it's wrong to say that the entire article consists of purely OR material. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 05:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking third party sources to verify notability of this chronological topic. And as a second reason, this article Wikipedia articles are supposed to be WP:NOT#PLOT only, whereas there is no third-party who has said anything out-of-universe about this chronology. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:18, 10 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.