Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Duelists

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. - Mailer Diablo 04:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Duelists

Not the Ridley Scott film, but some guys who play Renaissance fairs on the West Coast. Page looks like advertising was their goal; even so, I'm not sure what they do is sufficiently notable. Daniel Case 03:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as ... oh good God just make it go away. --Aaron 04:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just delete it eah... no reason there Aaron... Just because YOU dont like it... all the more reason to get rid of it. -- ph0t0bug
• Delete. The article is just a homepage and/or advertising Leidiot 10:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A cynical vanity page/advertisement for NN performers. The contributors have edited only this article [1][2] and the article is copyvio from here. --IslaySolomon 13:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Because at the time of writing the artical that is all the information I could find. I did in fact ask the owner of the page if I could use the Bios that were on their home page and they said "Yes." I have since obtained more information via a phone interview and will be posting that information as well. -- Ph0t0bug
  • You can't use information from a phone interview in a Wikipedia article if it can't be found in a reliable source as well.

    As for the images being copyrighted, well, getting permission to use them is nice but since May 2005 we have been trying to avoid using "copyrighted, permission for use" images because the permission can only extend to Wikipedia, not later users such as our scrape sites (answers.com, reference.com and the like), and we want all pictures on Wikipedia to be as freely reproducible as the text of articles. My suggestion would be to take your own pictures if possible, and then upload and license them as {{GFDL-self}}
    And the copyright violation claim refers to the text of the articles, not just the images. Daniel Case 14:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Copyright violation and non-notable. -- Stbalbach 14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment At this point I want someone to send me a link to what is defined as Notable on Wiki... and I did not violate ANY Copyrites.

• Comment. There is a series of articles like this on Wikipedia, see Renaissance Fair#Notable entertainers for a list - I'm not sure what to do about it, they started showing up en-masse a few months ago, word must have gotten around to a mailing list or something. I keep deleting all the red-links people are adding to the list, but that seems to encourage them to create non-notable articles like this one. -- Stbalbach 14:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Where is a copyrite violation? I consider this group notable in the fact that they are one of only a few which goes around to festivals teaching about the history of swordfighting and with credits to them for being professionals at what they do not only at festivals around the country and the globe but also for the contrabutions to films and plays around the country. That is what makes them "Notable". I can tell you right now that the Brobdingnagian Bards or Blackmore's Night or Minstrels of Mayhem or anyone on the list that is located on the artical for Renaissance Fair have made no more notable contrabutions to Renaissance Fairs than The Duelists. Just because they do not sing you choose to delete them. Half of the people on the Renaissance Fair#Notable entertainers list I have never heard of... That makes them Non-Notable to me. I am the one who authored this artical... because I thought they were intresting enough because of the fact that they DO exactly what the first Ren Fest was created to do and that is EDUCATE! As for the Copyright... I obtained all the photographs and information from Randal Scott who I have FULL permission from to do so... so there is no violation of the copyright when the owner of the copyrite gave me the stuff to use. Do as you will but I if they are to be deleted then so must the entire list of "Notable" preformers on the "Renaissance Fair" page. If that is gonna happen then deletion of all of the fairs listed there should be deleted as they are all advertising their fairs. ph0t0bug 13:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and whilst at it, delete many of the other equally non notable 'Notable Entertainers' Marcus22 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Resolute 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Ok.. Since everyone seems to want to kill this page lets first look at the word that was used the most: Notable

Defined by the American Heritage Dict.:
no·ta·ble (nt-bl) Pronunciation Key adj. Worthy of note or notice; remarkable: notable beauty; sled dogs that are notable for their stamina. Characterized by excellence or distinction; eminent: formed a commission of notable citizens. See Synonyms at noted. n. A person of distinction or great reputation. See Synonyms at celebrity. often Notable One of a council of prominent persons in pre-Revolutionary France called into assembly to deliberate at times of emergency.
End of Definition

The people to whom this page refers to fulfill all the requirements for the first definition by right of what they do. They educate the public and are known by millions of people who have seen their "shows" and lectures. So to say that they are Non-Notable is just being un-educated in the use of the word. Because someone does not know who someone is does not mean that that person is not notable to others. Thus we must look at what Wiki defines notable as.... which at this point I cant seem to find an artical on... so.. I digress. They also have shown "Excellence" & "Distinction" in their field so this proves them VERY Notable indeed. If there are changes that need to be made please suggest them and I will be more than happy to comply with those changes but don't just assume that because someone posted an artical about a person or group means that "THAT" person or group posted it just to "advertise". The Artical was never ment as an advertisement. --Ph0t0bug

• Delete. I can see no real notability here. And re the above comment, I very much doubt that they have been seen by anywhere near a million people, let alone millions. -- Necrothesp 01:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep IF any source that says anything about their relative notability as you state it can be found outside their own webpage. Otherwise Delete Guyanakoolaid 09:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Ph0t0bug, notability guidelines are found here. --IslaySolomon 12:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment IslaySolomon, While that is a page on Wiki that starts to define what the guidelines are you did NOT read the whole artical. CLEARLY stated at the top of the artical next to the "?" it states the following:

This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Once adopted as policy that would be Wiki's guidline but until then it is just perposed and can not be considered as law.
I must say that I DO apreciate Guyanakoolaid is saying and I will do the research. I wish more people responding to this would be as objective. --Ph0t0bug

There are very few hard policies on Wikipedia, %90 (or more) of the "rules" are actually just "guidelines". The reason is, it's very difficult to make a hard policy that works in every case - so we have pages like this where consensus is built around the guidelines - in the end its all about consensus, because even the guidelines can (and do) change all the time with consensus. My recommendation would be to learn more about how to write Wikipedia articles so they satisfy peoples sense of notability - look at other similar articles and re-write yours to be similar. Tone down the pictures so it doesn't look like a promotional site (one or two small pictures). Tone down the amount of text so it doesn't read like a home web page. Make it encyclopedic - information that will last 100 years, as if written by an academic scholar and historian. Also don't make it look like it was written by The Duelists, that is also grounds for deletion (self promotion is considered spam on Wikipedia). -- Stbalbach 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also direct your attention to WP:BIO, which is beyond the proposal stage and is "law". Can you find (and back up with sources) any way the Duelists satisfy those criteria? Daniel Case 14:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. While I think this particular article should be deleted, I must point out that WP:BIO is a guideline only and not a policy (or "law"), as it clearly states in the first paragraph. -- Necrothesp 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I meant in the fact that it's not a proposal, as the general notability guideline is. Daniel Case 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Understood... but there in lies the problem. Concensis. I can find thousands of people on WP who have never heard of these men and maybe even a few who are aginst the group as a whole... but... I could, and will state right now that I havent and will not, find a thousand to get on here and post "Keep". I have seen pages done by some of the people who are in this list that I have NO idea who they are... but I am not going to go to those pages and set them up for deletion. All in all it seems like a bad way of deciding what stays and what goes. It seems that some would just look at the new pages that are being added and not going out and activly finding the ones that already exist that look like advertising. I know a few of the groups that are listed on the Ren Fair artical and while I personally think that all of them should stay I also think that if this page is to go I will begin to do the same to bring any other "Advertising" page to the same demise. I have been to several of the other pages for "Notable" groups and NONE of them are up for deletion. I ask then WHY is my artical up for it. Lets be fair about it. Lets put them ALL up for deletion... of course refering to the "Notable" group on the Renaissance Fair. In fact I think that any person who would gain profits by even having a page on Wiki should be deleted. But if we did this ALL movies would have to go, Director & Actor Bios would have to go, Any living Artist would have to go. All Bands will have to go as well... See, anyone looking up something on Wikipedia may come across a link to something that points to those persons website.... which could be considered advertising and furthermore on that website could have a store, shop, t-shirts... and this is all from clicking on an external link on an Artical on Wiki. I say lets not do something half way... if your going to do it... go all the way.... but wait... that defets the reason to have a world supported encyclopedia --Ph0t0bug
• Weak keep if and only if the article actually gets some meat added to it - right now it looks like an ad. Info on just what WMA traditions they use, what their shows have to offer besides the generic descriptions, significant performances etc. would do much to improve it. Ergative rlt 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you... That is all I ask for is a chance to improve it. I will do so before the 5 days runs out. --Ph0t0bug

• • And if you could, what might really help your case would be some media coverage, with specific citations (online would make it easy to verify, but find what you can) of the non-trivial variety (i.e., not just a passing mention), a general principle in many of our issue-specific notability guidelines. Show us that people are urged to go to Renaissance fairs to see these guys. Show us something about their movie and TV work. Show us news stories that are primarily about them, and put them in the article as references. We like that. Daniel Case 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 23:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Group is not quite notable enough. Though some of the events they appear at might be. My Alt Account 09:27, 11 September 2006 (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.