Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halbbrüder

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 to main article. Of 5 people who spoke up here, 4 seem to be fine with redirect to main article. One person wrote "Keep When there is enough information to support a separate article on a specialized aspect [...]". There is, at least currently, not enough information. The article contains no directly sourced information; there is one external link, which is however about the order and does not even contain the term "Halbbruder".

The article may be recreated in the future according to the conditions described by Vagu's last message. In that event, it should be under the singular form "Halbbruder", and the article needs to mention the primary meaning of the term wikt:Halbbruder. — Sebastian 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halbbrüder[edit]

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

Non-Notable title of common members of the Teutonic Knights, who served in economy and hospitals. There is sufficient information about Halbbrüder (and Sariantbrüder, who are not the same) in the main article. According to the homepage of the German Order http://www.deutscher-orden.de/all_geschichte_start.php the informations of the article are wrong. The author of the article does not understand the difference between Sariantbrothers (warriors) and Halfbrothers (workers) Thw1309 (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I am a deletionist, but in this case I couldn't find much about these people in the article on the Teutonic Order. As for errors, well, they should be corrected if the above user can find a way to do it. Yours very sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article. De728631 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know what you are talking about, Thw1309. Since you claim the article is erroneous, why dont you ellaborate or use a couple of sources instead of deleting? i will change the article and include the speculation that sariantbruder and halbbruder are not the same, but i need a source. i cant just expand the article without using sources, its like writing fiction. the only source i have on the matter is a teutonic order osprey book. now correct me if i am wrong but i really dont believe such books of lovely immages and simplified historiography can be used as sources to anything (thats why i didnt bother including it). i have no access to german bibliography, my german is poor, and believe me, i have searched thorowghly in the english and greek bibliography and there are simply not enough serious sources about the matter. i wrote the stub in hopes that someone would decide to write something serious on the subject. Thats what i thought stubs are for. as you said, the article contains non-confirmed, deficient and probably erroneous information. I say its better than no information at all.Vagu (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i added the difference between sariant and halfbrothers in the article. i used that order german website as a source as i checked it and it does mention exactly what the original Teutonic Order article mentions about them. of cource this 'source' looks more like a fan made website with pictures and text, and i fail to see how we can accept it as a valid source without doubt. I know this is going in the wrong direction (the article is getting bigger and there is only one source), so i can only hope someone will rewrite it. delete and rewrite please. dont just delete content that is not available anywhere else. Vagu (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one big problem. Halbbrüder were the farmhands and servants of the order. Burchard von Schwanden wrote about them: "dâmit er sich verbinde zu dem ordene an dienste, an vihe zu hûtene, zu pflegene, zu acker zu gêne unde zu sein unde alle arbeit zu tûne nâch sînes conmendûres willen unde des hûses nôt." Halbbruder is the title for everyone, who is not important. If someone was neither Knightbrother nor Priestbrother nor Sariantbrother, then he was a halfbrother. Does someone realy think, the guy, who had to take care of the cows had any chance to become a Knight? All that is to be found about the cothes ist: "Daz oberste cleit sol sîn ein schaprûn mit wîten ermelen und mit eme halben crûze" which means, they wear a half cross on a short coat with wide arms. Why should they provide a farmhand with a white coat, when even Sariantbrothers, who were full members of the order had to use grey coats. Halfbrothers did not fight. Then why should they have shields? I don't know much about halfbrothers, except they were the servants, no full members of the order and the wore a half cross. Sources from these times usually show you much information about the lords, but almost nothing about the servants. Paper was to expensive to write about them. All I know about Halbrüder is: The informations of this article can not be right, because it refers to the Sariantbrothers or it is complete nonsense. Do you really want an article Halfbrothers were the servants of the Teutonic Order. Everyone who was no full Member of the Order was called that way. They were wearing a half cross on the coat. Please don't misunderstand me. I do not want Wikipedia only to contain informations about the lords. There simply is not enough information for a special article. The information of this special title of the order's servants should be part of Wikipedia, but it is not notable enough to create a special article. The same way I would be against an article about Knightbrothers, because they was no difference to any other knighted member of any other order, except the different colour of the coat. This simply is not enough to be notable. --Thw1309 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it does make sense now. lets just delete the article since its more fiction than facts. It would certainly be a better idea if there was a separate article about the various Members of the Order, or Ranks of the Order and their uniforms, were some of the information provided above could be included, (as there are already references in the internet linking to this very halbbruder article which means people are indeed interedsted in the issue and are getting their info out of it, and the article is not just some space-taking junk. All this should not be included in the main Order Article in my opinion, in order to try and keep it relatively short, but should be included in a new article linked to it. I am not going to start this new article as i am clearly not qualified to do so. Thw1309, you could easily write something up on the subject, though. Do you want me to start it and let the editing and sources to you? Or do you insist such info should not be included in wikipedia. One last thing that puzzles me is that you say that halfbrothers are cowherders and servants. Still the site you provided mentions them (together with sariantbrothers) as Nobles?? Makes no sense to me. Maybe its the eastern medieval society that is more complicated than i though, as i never really understood this whole slave/noble/knight concept with the ministerialen and all that complex social structure... Vagu (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When there is enough information to support a separate article on a specialized aspect, we should write one if anyone is interested in doing so. There is no basis on policy for doing otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 03:16, 13 December 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.