This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 08:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

A mix of events from history and attempts to put dates on pirate-related fiction. Not encyclopedic DJ Clayworth 21:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oh boy! Delete. I was going to say as 'original research' - but I think better as bs --Doc (?) 22:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not usefull or needed. Tombride 00:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd give a reason, but I've just been struck speechless. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:37, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
• Delete. A pirate timeline could be a useful article but this confusing mess of fiction, fashion, music and movie settings, etc. is not. I don't believe there is enough worth saving here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete shiver me timbers.. a POV mishmash of fact and fiction - not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; vanity, or original research, or outright bs. jglc | t | c 14:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see either a point or anything salvageable. The parrot on me shoulder agrees. Aaaarrr, matey! WCFrancis 20:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.