Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical anomalies in Blackadder

From 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 delete. Wizardman 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical anomalies in Blackadder

Historical anomalies in Blackadder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
  1. This seems to be an exercise in original research.
  2. It seems destined to become listcruft, even if not quite there yet.
  3. A large part of the humour in the series is in the form of deliberate anachronism; this article's explaining on each point that yes, this is a joke, or no, in the authoritative opinion of Wikipedians, this was an unintended inaccuracy, seems unnecessarily tedious.
  4. A note on the page for the series or the episodes that the historical accuracy is not that faithful, with one or two examples, would probably serve as well.

Pseudomonas(talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Pseudomonas(talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, original research. It isn't as if Blackadder was supposed to be a documentary, anyway. Better suited to a Blackadder fansite.--Michig (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Amusing, but delete. Pure original research, alas, and Wikipedia just isn't the right forum for it. Creator should consider putting it on her personal web site instead, as I think it's cool. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - No references, not asserts notability. Macy (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I guess I have to agree, but it would be great on a different website. George (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The series is an excellent one but it has a number of historical inaccuracies that can easily lead unsuspecting viewers to think are correct. Wikipedia is a great place to keep this sort of thing, since anyone curious about the subject is likely to look it up here. I certainly enjoyed reading the list of errors. Peyre (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, and half the examples of "anomalies" seem to just be failing to get the joke (echoing Pseudomonas' third point). Klausness (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete OR and unencyclopedic. Interesting and well written if wierdly pedantic but better somewhere else. Nick Connolly (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as it is OR, but can we not find somewhere to transwiki it? A lot of work has gone into it and it is interesting. --Bduke (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment it's rare that one sees such a well-worked example of Failing To Get The Joke. Unless that earnest tone is indeed the joke. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Nothing to do with not getting jokes. The series uses historical context, and the anachronism often is the joke. No OR required: most of the historical anomalies are pretty blatant. An interesting and useful resource. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And for a followup: List of anachronisms in The Flintstones? ;-) But seriously, it'd be much better to make sure the articles on the series were written in such a way that made clear that it's not a documentary - then on the occasion that a real historical person or event were referred to, this could be discussed and linked to in the page for that episode. Pseudomonas(talk) 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Smerge per nom (4) and above. Crufty WP:OR. Assertions as to the quality of the series and of the article's writing/evident efforts are entirely incidental. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Smerge to individual articles on series, probably. As a whole would be perfect for the Blackadder Wikia. --Dhartung | Talk 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Do any of you read history? This is an historical article and informs any user. BTW, Tom Hanks won WWII all by himself.--andreasegde (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, keep, I've changed my mind - it's useful. George C 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I found it educational both from a history POV and from the POV of the series. Matt Deres (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It gives perspective for an important TV programme. Charlycrash (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Request Could the 'keep' voters address the question of whether any reliable sources are discussing the historical accuracy of Blackadder in a significant way, so we can be sure we're not violating No Original Research, one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Interesting and worth a read, but as clear an example of original research you're ever likely to find. I'm afraid that "being useful" and "educational" doesn't negate this. Original Research does not belong on WP, it's a basic policy. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, having read it all now, I retract that "interesting and worth a read". Why is there no mention that Rowan Atkinson was born in 1955, and so couldn't have met Elizabeth I? Seriously, 90% of the article suffocates the humour of the subject under crushing pedantry. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not think NOR applies here. In this case, OR would involve comparing the two things (historic versus televised details) and arriving at something else, like a theme or purpose or some other conclusion. It's not OR to mention that Sir Francis Drake wasn't executed by Queen Lizzie, nor is it OR to mention that that "fact" is mentioned in "Head"; that's all this article does. OR would require synthesizing both bits and arriving at something else, something original. Matt Deres (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stating that "Blackadder shows X" is not original research, and neither is stating that "the historical fact is Y". But the article is using statements like this to form a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position – namely that Blackadder contains numerous "historical anomalies". EALacey (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The premise of the series is that it is a secret history. Being such, I think it's entirely natural and encyclopedic to list how the series deviates from accepted history. I could well have missed it, but I don't think the article rates the number of anachronisms and other inaccuracies as "numerous" or otherwise, it simply lists them and the evaluation is left to the reader. I've seen such lists on the internet since at least 1997 and recall seeing them on gopher servers before my school switched to the web, so while I have no idea if discussions about Blackadder's historicity have taken place in any kind of reputable books or magazines, it's a topic that's been tackled several times (albeit often in an amateurish way) on the internet. I'm not involved with the article in any way and I'm not going to weep and gnash my teeth if it gets deleted, but I can't fathom calling a topic "original research" when I've been reading similar lists for more than a decade. Matt Deres (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As good as any other article... Felis Sapien (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (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.