Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attributed arms of Knights of the Round Table


 * 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. The notability argument reeks of SYTH and does not refute the delete arguments Spartaz Humbug! 03:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Attributed arms of Knights of the Round Table

 * – ( View AfD View log )

One hardly knows what to say. This modern original artwork is not remotely encyclopaedic. Mais oui! (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly the author has put a lot of work into this, and would like a larger audience. There may well be a website on the legends that would be willing to host it or he might create his own. But I have to agree that to be included in Wikipedia the arms would need to have established notability, which they do not, and there would need to be somebody other than the originator making the case for attrbution even for inclusion in articles on individual knights such as Lancelot. So it cannot stay. --AJHingston (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to be original research, or original artwork, related to mythological persons, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Thus it apparently fails verifiability and notability. Edison (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a truly silly nomination. The Knights of the Round Table are notable. Attributed arms are notable. The attributed heraldry of the Knights of the Round Table is notable AND verifiable, as a feature of mediaeval armory, and is sourced in the article to one of the standard works on the subject, by the notable academic heraldic writer Michel Pastoureau. The work is a book, and this is permissible, as there is nothing that says that sources need to be on the internet. The illustrations of the arms have been redrawn, entirely properly, by the article creator to avoid violating the copyright of the website to which he refers. Admittedly he has done what the French often do, and dropped a French Wikipedia article into the English Wikipedia without bothering to translate it. Tsk, and a slap on ze wrist, but this is not grounds for deletion, but for translation, which I will do myself. All of you, esp the nominator, before contributing here again, please read and then act upon WP:BEFORE. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - if you follow that statement - "The Knights of the Round Table are notable. Attributed arms are notable." - to its logical conclusion then we could end up with some wonderfully whacky Wikipedia articles. Eg: West Highland White Terriers are notable. Auchtermuchty is notable. Therefore let's start a Wikipedia article on Heidi, the renowned 2 year old bitch from No. 5 Main Street, Auchtermuchty. We can even get the local primary bairns to create the original artwork, and publish a wee pamphlet. Or, on the other hand, we could try to create a serious encyclopedia. Just a novel suggestion... --Mais oui! (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The scope is indeed enormous, and might actually make Wikipedia less tedious than it has become over the last couple of years. But do please continue to the following sentences: the subject in itself is also notable / verifiable / sourced, and a little looking around would have shown this. HeartofaDog (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've added sources, references etc, to what was already there, establishing that the group is a notable one, translated it from French, added a brief intro for context, and generally cleaned it up so that even a very casual / drive-by observer can see that this is not in any sense OR, but that there are third-party sources and references, which are multiple, verifiable and so on. Clearly there's a lot more that can be done to it to develop it.


 * As to the artwork, see my comment above about copyright. Heraldic articles require illustration, and re-drawing rather than copying is the normal way to provide it without violating someone else's copyright (which is in the artwork, not in the blazon).


 * This is a badly-done and time-wasting nomination, not because the article should not have been challenged - it should have been: it was simply dumped untranslated and without comment from the French Wikipedia - but because the nominator hasn't bothered, or wasn't able, to frame a single coherent reason why the article should be deleted, or to come up with one when challenged (but thanks anyway for Heidi the Old Bitch of Auchtermuchty - a Scots TV personality, I believe? certainly should be). The two drive-bys don't seem to have troubled to read the article, and certainly haven't got as far as WP:LISTN. WP:BEFORE is there for a reason. HeartofaDog (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been notified to the Heraldry and vexillology Project. HeartofaDog (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2011 (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.