- 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 redirect to Ellipsis (narrative device). RL0919 ( talk) 16:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Timeskip
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Timeskip ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been PRODded 3 times, so I have procedurally brought this article to AfD. To quote the three PROD nominations:
We are not TV Tropes.
— User:Don Cuan 17:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTDIC. Does not meet WP:GNG; no RS found in Google, Books, News Archive or Scholar searches.
— User:Miniapolis 18:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Has had warning regarding sources for 12 years
— User:114.156.131.245 22:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Pinging all @ Don Cuan, Miniapolis, and 114.156.131.245. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTDICT. No sources for 12 years, and three PRODs (I thought 1 was the limit...). Most of the article consisted of an inappropriate and WP:UNDUE list of examples, basically all WP:OR and uncitable (maybe in some people's minds, a lot of bluelinks seem almost like evidence: nope), so I've removed it. I've had a check for available sources, and to be frank there aren't any that are usable, so (even if it wasn't a DICDEF) it's simply Not Notable. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Other than that, I agree with Chiswick Chap. Don Cuan ( talk) 08:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Mccapra ( talk) 10:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)- Delete Wikipedia is not TVTropes. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 10:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:NOTDIC. Onel5969 TT me 12:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete- This seems to have got lost on its way to TVTropes. Reyk YO! 12:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- It may seem like original research because it's a name plucked from thin air by a Wikipedia editor 12 years ago, never fixed, and written in the cargo cult style. In the terminology of narratology, this type of anachrony is named ellipsis, and goes alongside prolepsis and analepsis. We actually had an article under the correct name half a year before this article was created. I notice that this slang name turns up in (inexpert) books now (e.g. ISBN 9781943149025 p.8). A prophylactic redirect to ellipsis (narrative device) seems the best answer, to redirect people who use this slang name to the correct name for the concept. Uncle G ( talk) 14:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect I agree with Uncle G, this article is essentially describing an ellipsis (narrative device), and the name should be redirected to that article. BluePankow ✉ 14:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to ellipsis (narrative device) per Uncle G. In addition to all of the sourcing problems in this particular article, it is, as pointed out, merely a slang term for a narrative device that already has a proper article. Redirecting the slang to the proper article makes the most sense. As there is no referenced material here worth preserving, a merge is not necessary. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to ellipsis (narrative device), for which it is a colloquial term. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect as suggested. It is pretty clear that this article is not suited for Wikipedia (, but the case above for redirection to ellipsis (narrative device) is strong as it is possible someone could use timeskip as a search term. Dunarc ( talk) 19:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect per Uncle G, and thanks for teaching me something today! Argento Surfer ( talk) 15:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect per the above discussion. Aoba47 ( talk) 23:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect per Uncle G. That hadn’t occurred to me and if ‘timeskip’ is a likely search term this is the best outcome. Mccapra ( talk) 20:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- 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.