Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major events of the Marvel Universe

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 no consensus. Merge and renaming proposals should be pursued at the relevant talkpage(s). Skomorokh 12:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major events of the Marvel Universe

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

The premise of the article (which is a mish-mash of storylines and first appearances) rests on original research and relies on editor's subjective viewpoint about what is "major" within the marvel universe. In addition, the article seems to duplicate the function of fictional history of the Marvel Universe which states that it "includes the major events that formed the setting for Marvel Comics Universe."Cameron Scott (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Cameron Scott. fictional history of the Marvel Universe covers the topic well enough. McMarcoP (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. ~~Merge to Fictional history of the Marvel Universe.~~ Abductive (reasoning) 12:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It probably could be sourced, but this is actually a timeline of events in our own universe, where there is a publishing company called Marvel Comics. Yes, the Fantastic Four comic came out in 1961, but if that was an event 48 years ago in their "universe", then even Johnny Storm would be pushing 70, unable to get his "flame on". Reed Richards and Ben Grimm were World War II veterans, for crying out loud. Mandsford (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Huge original research and subjective organization magnet. This is why you shouldn't base articles solely on fictional sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely subjective/OR criteria for inclusion. --EEMIV (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put the information in fictional history of the Marvel Universe if it's not already there, once the AfD closes. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not worth keeping, due to issues with in-universe focus and original research. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the real world info; stuff like which year Captain America debuted. Each piece of info surely should be in an article somewhere. ~~I just don't like it as a list. Really, the list should be in the WikiProject Comics space.~~ Abductive (reasoning) 20:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the focus is chiefly on in-story events, with token notice paid to what issues the event appeared in. Everything fromt he title to the content establish this as a subjective list of in-story details. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first appearances of major comic book characters which have been around for decades now, and other major events is clearly notable. And it isn't original research, you able to find check the official Marvel website to confirm when each new character first appeared, as well as the rest. The primary source can be used, if the information is not in any possible doubt for accuracy. Dream Focus 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability needs to be established by secondary sources, not primary sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cameron Scott had placed a redirect at fictional history of the Marvel Universe, I undoing it. I think that should be mentioned, since many are trying to merge it over there. The information is different, one having a list of things, including first appearances of notable long lived characters, and the other is just a brief overall summary of things. Dream Focus 15:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is now up for deletion in itself. So those who want to merge or redirect there, please reconsider. Dream Focus 16:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.
Keep but maybe rename timeline of MC or something. If you want ready formatted sources for the silver age years, go to Silver Age of Comics. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are good sources for this topic such as this which explicitly discusses major events in the Marvel universe. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To use that source would be inappropriate. That page is about the miniseries Marvels, not about the Marvel universe as a whole. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how about this source, a book, Marvel Chronicle: A Year by Year History. It is published by Dorling Kindersley, which as far as I can tell has no affiliation with Marvel Entertainment, and came out in 2008. You can look inside the Amazon listing, and see that it starts off with 1939; the Human Torch and the Submariner. I'm changing my notvote to Keep. Really, this topic is far more interesting and encyclopedic than the fictional timeline; I would have never guessed that the Human Torch was the first Marvel character. A name change of some sort is in order. Abductive (reasoning) 10:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an excellent source for Marvel Comics, but not for a subjective in-universe plot summary. It still doesn't help this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is arranged by real life years. If some of the entries are unsourced and unsourceable, they can be removed, since they aren't notable. But the article as a whole is on a notable topic, albeit with a bad title. Abductive (reasoning) 10:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can write about the history of the company in Marvel Comics, where it belongs and would be in context. You're basically exchanging original research for redundancy, and it still wouldn't clear up the in-universe problems. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy means merge, which you can just do on your own if the article is kept. Abductive (reasoning) 11:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can vote for a "merge"', which given your comment would be preferrable to voting "keep". WesleyDodds (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but delete all "events" lacking references. The idea of the article is legitimate, it just needs some cleaning up. --Martin de la Iglesia (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep and merge with fictional history of the Marvel Universe. It appears to me that both articles have similar and independent issues affecting their content and quality; however, I feel 'Events' has both greater sustainablity (through independent sources) and real world context. Many of the Marvel events have 3rd party sources of not only comics sites, the above mentioned Marvel: Year by Year, and Ultimate Guide ... all of which point to major company events (sometimes thru the lense of individual chaacters). In short, recreate the pages together but rather than a timeline by years, a timeline by events. -Sharp962 (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2009 (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.