Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirates versus Ninjas


 * 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. With respect to the nominator, many of the editors here do believe that it is notable and that the notability is derived from reliable sources. Troubling material can be re-worded and improved to sound more encylopedic to address the concerns. Seraphim Whipp (Non-admin closure) 15:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pirates versus Ninjas

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is unsalvageablely unencylopedic. Text is entirely conjecture about a nonnotable internet meme. Sets unreasonable standard for other topics on Wikipedia. Cumulus Clouds 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Improve The "Pirate vs" Ninja"-conflict is a very well known and often referenced internet meme. The article definitly needs improvement though. ~ Felcis 03:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, well, in that case put it in Internet Meme or Meme or put a single line into Pirate or Ninja that explains this was once a catchphrase. Having an entire article dedicated to what can essentially be reduced to a one sentence explanation is damaging to the value of all other articles on this encyclopedia. Cumulus Clouds 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Arrr You mean that, by their mere presence, pirates and ninjas will invisibly permeate every other article in the Wikipedia? All two million of them?  That truly is Awesome Power! Colonel Warden 08:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. All Things Considered and Wired are reliable third-party sources.  Powers T 03:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Improve The topic definitely seems notable enough to have a page, but it needs some serious improvement. --Crazy4metallica 04:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In reference to this article's notability, I'd like to point out that the only pages that link to it are from other articles "see also" sections, which tends to refute the idea that this cliche needs its own article. Cumulus Clouds 23:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: Barely notable. Needs a whole lot of work.  If it remains in this condition, and another AfD starts down the road, I'll say delete. - Rjd0060 04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; Internet memes need more than a couple mentions to achieve real-world notability. Article is seriously deficient. Seems to attempt to describe a neologism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardish (talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote from National Public Radio: "... the pirate vs. ninja debate (PvN for short) which has engaged the Internet in a world wide war for at least a decade, maybe more ..." Not exactly a neologism.  Powers T 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with the PvP article; if it has notability, it seems to be contained as an in-joke kind of thing to fans of the comic. VZG 06:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly; PvP is referencing the larger meme. Powers T 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is quite notable and has become more so since Pirates of the Carribean and International Talk Like a Pirate Day.  Colonel Warden 15:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those things are relevant to Pirates, but they express only a tenuous relation to the article in question and do so only by way of the word Pirates. Cumulus Clouds 02:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs cleanup, but worth keeping, especially with things like the Pirates vs Ninjas Dodgeball game coming out. aeonite  —Preceding comment was added at 16:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the event the Keep vote is overwhelmed or ignored, I would recommend rolling this content into the Pirates_Vs._Ninjas_Dodgeball article, since that too has a dearth of content and both pages would benefit from the inclusion of the other. aeonite 08:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep it's an internet meme, but it's a notable internet meme Doc Strange 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Pirates vs Ninjas" meme may be notable, but it doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article for it since there's nothing else you can say about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumulus Clouds (talk • contribs)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to pass muster for notability. • Lawrence Cohen  17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Notable or not, there's no way to expand this article without making it a list dedicated solely to references in popular culture (which composes the bulk of it now anyway). There is a serious lack of research and news sources which would be citeable in this instance and so it would be nearly impossible to ever bring this article out of stub-class. Cumulus Clouds 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve The extent of this debate alone should indicate that there is enough interest in keeping the entry. If people are looking for information on it, then let them find it. Plenty of more offensive articles out there. Could definitely be cleaned up and improved, however, no argument there. --Mansquito 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I have recently added some citations to the article, hopefully improving it. aeonite 20:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable Internet meme. Rray 00:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't know anything about the PvN except from the Facebook application. In any case, I am sceptical about the composition and very doubtful about the relevance of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.241.166 (talk • contribs)


 * I'll give it a month and then I'm resubmitting this nomination. -- Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd need to find some better reasons. See WP:DEADLINE and WP:NOEFFORT.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete--no reliable sources, lots of unsourced claims/original research (such as the "Why pirates and ninjas?" section). If not deleted, it should be trimmed to keep only the sourced material and stubbed.  I don't even see sourcing for the article's premise in its lead. Robert K S (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. All Things Considered and Wired are reliable third-party sources.  Powers T 03:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeonite (talk • contribs)
 * But all of the sources you're quoting only say that "Pirates v. Ninjas is a meme." Eliminating everything else makes this article one sentence long and that's hardly something worth keeping. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My purpose in citing this was merely to point out LtPowers' statement that offered a counterpoint to this one. The argument here wasn't what those sources said, only that they weren't reliable. Which LtPowers believes (and I agree) is false. The content of the sources is another issue. aeonite (talk)
 * Also if you're the "Michael "Aeon" Fiegel" that wrote the article in the first reference, my understanding of WP:OR is that you aren't allowed to cite your own work on Wikipedia to advance your own viewpoint. I'm open to other intepretations on that, but it just seems a little shady to me. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am. The link in question (to Hobotrashcan) was one of two to that site that was already on the page, not put there by me. However, I chose the wrong one - the one I meant to cite was the first one, to which my article was a counterpoint. I will make the correction (in my eyes) now and if reversion is decided upon then I accept that. aeonite (talk)
 * Just for reference, I think WP:OR#Citing_oneself covers this, and the issue would seem to be not be my (mistaken, now corrected) self-citation but whether HoboTrashCan is considered a "reliable publication." I have no opinion on that matter though I suspect the general consensus would be mixed. aeonite (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Definite keep. I came to wiki looking for Pirates vs. Ninjas because they sell PvN toys even, and wanted to know what it was about.  Important article. javin (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.85.195 (talk • contribs)
 * How could this article have explained anything to you that wouldn't have intuitively occured already? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Definite delete. I came here just out of curiosity, assuming if it had a wiki page, it must have some interesting content. The content currently is essentially, "some guy on the internet wondered which are cooler, pirates or ninjas". The page has absolutely no content. If you feel so strongly about keeping it, please fill in more info - reference these PvN toys, talk about the facebook game, and fill it in with pictures. As it is now, though, a page that says "pirates vs ninjas is an internet phenomenon" is just a worthless stub, and dilutes WP. Lenrodman (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2007 (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.