Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Teague

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 redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Teague

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough sources to prove WP:GNG and not enough information per WP:Split to be a individual article when it fits just fine in the List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters article. Is also a minor character in the franchise anyway. I purpose a merge more than a deletion. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a minor character in the films, but not in the franchise.--Max Tomos (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are talking about the tie-in novels. I suppose that counts on making him a little essential for the franchise but can you prove that the character is notable. It would also be nice if the article was more than just plot summary. And let's face it all the information about him looks fine in the section of the list article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters, which was already done, but Max reverted it. While very interesting due to his casting, I don't think there would be enough coverage. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. This article will never have enough secondary coverage in critical sources to merit his very own page and there's no reason not to include this information on a list of characters. Merge should not have been reverted to begin with. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 20:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't merge. This article is important. Please don't merge. The person who had the idea of merge let me tell : you're a fag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.84.79.138 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain why this is important to the real-world (i.e. outside of PotC). Homophobia on it's own achieves nothing. (It doesn't tend to help with anything, really...) Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's deflection. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters Since it was already merged, there's no need to merge it again, so it's simply redirecting. This article does not show notability. There does not appear to be any third-party independent reliable sources discussing the character non-trivially, which are needed for a Wikipedia article.. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above arguments. No notability. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. Came across this article a while ago and have had it on my watchlist meaning to AfD since then! No separate claim to notability, a better fit on the characters page. HornetMike (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect While the fictional characters does not meet the general notability guideline and the article is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work and an unneeded content fork with barely one reference, as others commented, it is already merged in List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters, so a redirect should be enough. Jfgslo (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2011 (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.