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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical timeline of the Big Bang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Deprod rationale claimed that notability was not refuted, but that is not the issue in the article. However, the other issues have not been addressed. They did not explain why we need a graphical version of the timeline in Chronology of the universe and Timeline of the early universe. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Astronomy, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... not actually an article, and not justifiable under any notability criteria or WP:NOT? This could just be an image, in which case it might be helpful to more readers than the 50 or so who stumble across it every day. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:CFORK. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – same reasoning as with Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe. It's not an article, it's cruft written with messy markup. Something akin to Template:Nature timeline could be added to one of the remaining timeline articles. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. We are an encyclopedia, which should be published at an appropriate "Lexile" (or reading level) that a layperson can read and at least gather the gist. It's in a sense discrimination against our core readers - who need context. Our articles are geared towards a certain audience, and if you don't know your audience, get off the stage. If a teacher submitted this as a lesson plan, they would be evaluated as "not effective." There are many other STEM articles that even I don't understand, but they can be fixed with links, examples, and footnotes. This one, using a logarithmic scale as its centerpiece, can't be fixed into an actual encyclopedia article. Sorry to be so harsh, but I just spent hours the past few days fixing articles that were too high or too low a Lexile. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2025 (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.