Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hector Barbossa
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 keep. Nominator blocked as a sockpuppet; no other support for deletion. Merge discussions can continue on the talk pages. Fences&Windows 00:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hector Barbossa
- Hector Barbossa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- )
- )
- Tia Dalma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- )
- Joshamee Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- )
- )
- )
These Pirates of the Caribbean characters do not hold any
]- Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect them all to the respective movies. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep at least Barbossa and Tia as major characters in arguably the most significant new film franchise of the decade. The others might be better served by merging, although none of them are so egregiously minor that an article is completely unacceptable. Sourcing should be no problem given the enormous amount of media coverage of the series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment fails ]
- Keep at least Norrington and Barbossa, they should have plenty of external sources, I'll go look for some now. Barbossa especially since sources point to him being in a 4th. The rest should be Redirected to a Characters of PotC page. Tphi (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment fails ]
- Keep some or mergeinto a combination article . Inappropriate group nomination, as they are not of similar importance. I must admit I too do not know the works involved, but at least I read the main Wikipedia articles and can see that much. A combination characters article is appropriate for all important works of fiction. Combination articles have contents that must meet WP:V but need not individually meet WP:GNG--for if they did, they would be separate articles. And character ≠plot -- they are separate aspects. The "cast" sections in the individual film articles are inadequate--for a franchise like this, it's better to keep all the characters together. And at least to me, if not to some of the people at the film project, characters and cast are also separate related things, each needing discussion. Retelling major amounts of the plot for each character's position in it is usually unnecessary if they are grouped in combination articles, which is another advantage. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment fails WP:IMPORTANT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - a totally absurd ignorant, unproductive delete suggestion. Keep all articles. More information is better. if you want to delete stuff, people are totally easy to go ignorant. Stop this nonsense. 174.16.239.106 (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 174.16.239.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This comment fails ]
- Merge all these articles to one, not giving undue detail to each character. Giving a separate article to each character isn't necessary. Rkr1991 (Wanna chat?) 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Barbossa and Norrington (they appear in every film and must have some sources). -- deerstop. 07:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment fails ]
- Strong keep, especially Barbossa and Dalma. These articles contain lots of useful information, they're not just one- or two-paragraph stubs. I find the whole thing of deleting articles on notable fictional worlds quite absurd. --89.31.118.248 (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment fails ]
- Absolutely keep! Barbossa is a major character that is vital to the plot, for heaven's sake, and should have a separate page. It serves no purpose to deleting this and the others that are also targeted. Also keep Norrington.PNW Raven (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment fails ]
- Note to closing administrator and future AFD !voters - The majority of the above !votes appear to be based around the fact that users like the subject issue. Please remember to comply with Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions when airing your views. WossOccurring (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, not my !vote: personally, the only pirate movie I like is Errol Flynn's Captain Blood (1935 film). While we're at it, I don;t see any other comments based on that argument either--though a few seem to be based only on its obviously important. DGG ( talk )
- Comment I usually don't venture into the AFD area, but randomly ran across this one. While I agree that articles about movie characters may not be notable enough for separate articles, I would like to note that most of what WossOcurring in regards to failing WP argument guidelines could be applied to his nomination in the first place. I would vote to merge most of these entries into the list of minor characters in PotC. Clegs (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of my nomination fails the guidelines? WossOccurring (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Barbossa, there should be material in the 2000+ Google News hits to make a decent verifiable article.[1] e.g. these articles about Rush's role:[2][3][4][5][6]. As the nominator obviously didn't bother looking for sources for this one (WP:BEFORE) I have no faith that they checked for sources for the others, so keep or merge the rest. Fences&Windows 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Norrington and Barbossa, and merge and redirect the rest into ]
- Strong Keep. Per above and WP:ILIKEIT). And WossOccurring, for responding to single keep !vote. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:51, 31 December 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.