Select Page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black knight

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 no consensus. One two three... 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black knight

Black knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fiction presented as fact. Nonsense, can't find an internet source for the information, haven't checked the literary uses. Also, white knight is not an article in the sense this article refers, while white knight is the contrast and would seem equally notable. mynameincOttoman project 21:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep the concept is a rather obvious one so sources must be there. Nominator clearly stated that he did not look at the literary uses. Ivanhoe (and commentaries on the same) might be a good start from what I remember reading about 30 years ago. Agathoclea (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The question here is whether reliable sources can be found to establish some sort of thematic or other connection between the many characters so identified—in Chaucer, in Lydgate, in Malory, and elsewhere in fiction. Offhand, I'm not aware of any, and the crucial section of the article in its present form ("Historical significance") certainly seems to constitute unsourced, and unpersuasive, original research. Stuff like this doesn't really qualify, since it would support nothing but an indiscriminate list of characters sharing a "name." If someone can come up with some solid sources upon which an article can be reared, I'm quite willing to recommend that this be kept; but if no such sources are forthcoming, I can't see the good of it. (And if anyone adds a Phineas and Ferb entry to the "Literary use" section, I'll be upset.) Deor (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was just about to comment here about the quality of the sources but Deor is right on. Most information on black knight to me seem to be monty python references or other entertainment media, pretty much contained in Black Knight (disambiguation). But likewise ill support keeping the articel providing some adequate sources present themselves and not just the formulation of original research. Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. As a term, as a characterization in fiction, etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deor's comment that there is no evidence of any connection between the various usages of the interesting phrase "black knight" is compelling for a delete. On the other hand, I can't find mention on WP of the fact that "black knight" can also refer to "A company that makes a hostile takeover offer on a target company"[1]. I quickly browsed Ivanhoe and it simply describes a knight dressed in black, on a black horse; we really need a reliable source making some of the claims in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this article has been raised, repeatedly, since 2006. This content has been challenged by multiple editors — on the talk page, in the previous AFD discussion, and even by editors removing the content from the article with edit summaries like this one and this one — over a period of two and a half years.

    Agathoclea, ChildofMidnight, your arguments and unsupported assertions of notability are not enough. Such unsupported assertions were made in the prior discussion, and, as observed, failed to be substantiated by those making the claims, as you have as yet not substiantiated your repetitions of these claims. It's money-where-one's-mouth is time. Where are sources that (a) support this content in any way (especially in light of the claim that this content is a falsehood that is historically incorrect and a false description of what would be properly known as a knight errant in any case) and (a) show the notability (or indeed even the existence of) the concept that you claim, without supporting evidence, exists?

    I've actually looked for sources myself, and the problem is as Deor describes. There's nothing to link, say, the Black Knight of Chaucer's The Book of the Duchess with Thomas Middleton's Black Knight Gondomar from A Game at Chess. (This is unsurprising, given that both are taken by scholars to be simple pseudonyms for actual people, John of Gaunt and Diego Sarmiento de Acuña, conde de Gondomar respectively, who have no relation to one another.)

    The one source that I've found that even comes close to describing a literary stock character or trope is A dictionary of symbols (ISBN 9780415036498). But that source is an article on "Colour (Positive/Negative)", and it is describing the common white-knight-versus-black-knight theme, not black knights as a standalone subject. As with the coverage of this as a term, and as a chess piece, this theme is covered already by another article. In this case, the other article is black-and-white dualism (which is what the article in the book is itself covering, in fact — It doesn't even treat white-knight-versus-black-knight as a standalone subject.).

    The problem with this article is that originally it was the disambiguation that is now at Black Knight (disambiguation). Some rubbish was added to the disambiguation in 2004. This rubbish has persisted ever since, to the outright exclusion of the disambiguation itself, and has even been restored to the article under the very much mistaken and ill-thought guise of reverting vandalism. There are no sources that describe a literary trope, and that link Chaucer to Middleton to Arthurian legend to Ivanhoe to Star Wars to Scooby-Doo as many past revisions of this article have variously tried to do. (I kid you not. See this and this for two examples.) We've preserved the rubbish with vague handwaving and unsubstantiated assertions of verifiability and notability for too long. The disambiguation was the right thing to have here. The rubbish should, finally, after two and a half years of challenges with not a single supporting source ever shown for it in all that time and with no sources evident after actually looking for them, go. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Before you talk about my "very much mistaken and ill-thought" revert, I did not realize what condition the article was in. I seen a removal of content, and reverted appropriately. In addition, by deleting that part the user deleted the backbone of the article, and we have processes for deleting an article. Besides, when nominating an article, should we remove the worst parts and then nominate it, masking its true glory from contributors, including myself, who usually don't search the history of a page before voting? mynameincOttoman project 14:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary: You saw a removal of content, didn't read the edit summary that came with it, and reverted it calling it "vandalism". "Appropriately" is not the word for that. You treated a good faith edit, that removed content for a cause that has been discussed on the article's talk page since 2006, as if it were vandalism, and you restored content removed for cause because you were more concerned with "deletion process" (which doesn't apply to using the editing tool) than a correct article, and didn't even take into account the issue explained in detail in the edit summary. That was inappropriate, very much mistaken, and ill-thought.

        Please learn the difference between deletion and editing. The two are not the same, and removing original research from an article with the ordinary editing tool is most definitely not deletion.

        Moreover, if you are not looking at the histories of articles that come up at AFD, and are, in your own words, "voting", you are not doing AFD any good. This is a discussion process, not a vote. The people who help AFD the most are the people who do their research. The people who help the least are those who sit and "vote", based upon no more than what they see directly in front of them, with no more effort than that expended. AFD needs those who will look at article histories (not least becase vandalizing an article and then nominating it for deletion is an old trick), who will search for sources, who will look at sources proferred, and who do attempt to determine how our policies and guidelines apply. It doesn't need "votes"; and people who don't do the work do deserve the proverbial trout slapping that they receive, for sitting idly by and not helping.

        In this discussion, for example, AFD needs further editors to determine what the article's possible subjects are from its editing history, to look for sources themselves, in order to double-check your and my searches for sources, and either concur or disagree based upon what they find. "votes" would be of no use, because they are not based upon doing any work. Because they lack a valid foundation they lend no weight in either direction to the correctness of the final outcome. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • I don't like the course this discussion is taking, especially in civility. And I'm sorry, but a lot of AfDs don't need history research, if you haven't noticed. At the time, I didn't see the original research, partially due to the list of "literary issues" and the tag says "This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.", not "This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details.". The talk page says the article needs sources. mynameincOttoman project 16:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SO many sources it's hard to choose examples: Google books [2] an example [3] another [4]. This source ties black knight characters together in a discussion of race [5]. Used in Arthurian legend, used by Chaucer, used in movies, used by Gloria Vanderbilt for a book title. Etc. etc. [6] THis isn't a reliable source, but it has a listing of some of the notable renditions of this meme [7]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that you do choose examples, because without them you don't have a case. As I said above, the sources that your search turns up, as did my own searches, don't actually document any such literary trope. They document Chaucer and Middleton and Arthurian mythology, but don't link them. We already have articles on The Book of the Duchess, A Game at Chess, and Black Knight (Arthurian legend), the three things that (in that very order) your purported examples actually address. (Your fourth example isn't even a source discussing this subject, and isn't even called "Black Knight".) As with your chess piece edit, all that you've done here is shown something that is actually the purview of another article, and still not shown a single source for this article or the umbrella concept that you assert to exist. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle G, this seems to be a personal vendetta for you. You've been really hateful in the discussion, and mildly attacked any opinions and their respective editors that don't confirm to your point of view. mynameincOttoman project 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he makes some interesting points, and I don't mind them being made assertively. I strongly disagree with his conclusions. One of the cites I provided mentions the Black Knight in the context of Arthurian legend and Thomas Pynchon's Schwarzkommando and Walker Percy's 1977 Lancelot (novel) (not about a medieval knight but "a vision of an empty modern American culture". So clearly there is notable recognition of the trope. It's been discussed extensively in particular examples, and is sometimes linked. It's use by a 20th century author for the title of an autobiography is one example I gave that points to its continuing relevance as a sort of meme, if I'm using that word right. It's definitely worth an article, although we have to be careful not to synthesize or tie the examples together unless we find sources that do so explicitly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable fiction, no references. Fictional character can mean different things to different works of fiction as well, and these differences are better addressed in the individual works. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated in my comment above, and move Black Knight (disambiguation) to this title per Uncle G. Deor (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are oodles of sources discussing the use of the Black Knight character and how it's been adapted and adopted by various authors, and in cinema etc. Are those voting deletion even bothering to look? [8]
"As to the cinema there are over forty full-length Arthurian feature films to date, some of them well worth forgetting, like The Black Knight (1954) with Alan Ladd[9]
"In the course of this quest, Tennyson condenses and simplifies (Thomas) Malory (Le Morte d'Arthur)... Tennyson's most significant alteration is to shape suggestive elements of medieval folklore into a specific allegory. By transforming Malory's Green Knight, Red Knight, Blue Knight, Black Knight, and Red Knight of the Red Laundes into the figures of Morning-Star, Noonday Sun, Evening Star and Death, Tennyson forged a not altogether successful allegory..." "Whereas Malory's Gareth encounters the Black Knight first... Tennyson builds up to the Black Knight, with his commonplace association with death.[10] ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a literary archetype, the black knight has no equal. Even in modern times and non-medieval settings he is found in only slightly less recognizable forms (Darth Vader, anyone?). The article needs much more sourcing from the standpoint of literary criticism and study, but the subject is certainly noteworthy. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is quite simple. The lede states "The black knight is a literary stock character," and if that is an unverifiable claim, then this should be deleted. The article provides no substantive basis to back up this idea and a google scholar search on terms like trope, meme, meta-character, etc... turn up nothing to suggest this is true ,beyond a few individual literary instances where the black knight is a specific character. Eusebeus (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you defining a stock character when you found him in "literary instances where the black knight is a specific character". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2009 (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.