Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brethren Court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Neil ╦ 10:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brethren Court

Brethren Court (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article concerns a plot device from a recently released Disney movie. Previously nominated as Brethren of the Coast. Prior nomination was closed as a redirect. New article does not address any of the concerns brought up during the last nomination. The article still comprises original research, sheer speculation, and a questionable gallery of fair use images. The article is still bereft of any references or assertions of notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End Corvus cornix 02:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep: It does address some of the previous problems as it is not a page comprised of original research or "sheer speculation" as the information comes from the official website, the producers, the junior novelisation and other verifiable sources. The pictures, however, may not be fair use, the ones I put up were from either this site or the PotC Wiki, so I assumed that they were, if they're not, I apologise and they can most definetely be removed. Therequiembellishere 03:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Seriously keep: It outlines and addresses a rather important issue that wont be as emphasisized in another article. --24.56.216.190 03:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The article currently is in need of work, but it is an effective compromise between squeezing it into the movie article and giving each pirate lord their own page. --Hemlock Martinis 03:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Hardly - the individual characters don't come close to meriting their own articles. EliminatorJR Talk 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Which is why they're here and not in individual articles... --Hemlock Martinis 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep And how do you go about stating that this article doesn't meet any of the reasons for which it was originally deleted? It clearly meets one need: The movie in which the Brethren Court takes place has actually been released. Also, not all of this is sheer speculation or original research, seeing as most of the work put on the page has been stated to come from the Disney website. With some tuning up and some work, this article could be above the line, as opposed to being on the line as it is right now.Locke 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've seen it sourced on the PotC Wiki as from the At World's End Visual Guide. Next time I'm at a bookstore I'll flip through it and double-check. --Hemlock Martinis 04:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
And the official website.Therequiembellishere 04:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
All of these are primary sources that don't elaborate on importance or notability. Are these characters important outside of the movie? Is the plot device? Has it influenced other authors/filmmakers? Authors of this article are simply stitching together bits and pieces of fan rumors and promotional materials. Just because Disney sees fit to capitalize on a successful media franchise by releasing a ton of intellectual property does not mean Wikipedia has a responsibility to cover all of it to the tiniest detail! The movies are important, millions of people have watched them and they have generated billions of dollars in profits. Part of the coverage of this media franchise includes summarizing the plot, characters, and so forth. These types of articles, however, are gratuitous and trivialize any encyclopedic aims by being dumping grounds for, well, trivia. Projects like the PotC wiki exist precisely to reduce the load on Wikipedia by allowing for unlimited speculation and fan service. We have editorial policies here that demand rigorous referencing and assertions of real-world notability - this article clearly violates those precepts. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to a Brethren of the Coast section in List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean, and trim out all the non-canon stuff unless sourceable. This isn't the Pirates wiki, this pretty much fails WP:FICT. Except for Teague all the characters are barely significant in the film -- they don't even participate in the main action at the climax, just cheer the main characters. Big whoop. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge or Strong Redirect: This is silly. If every location in a commercially released film gets a page, Wiki would be full of fiction. Bradybd 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
A simple read of the article shows it to be an organization, not a location. --Hemlock Martinis 05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If every organization in a commercially released film gets a page, Wiki would be full of fiction. Same crap, different day. -- Jelly Soup 06:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Jelly. My mistake. I do sense the this is rather silly still. In five years, who is going to care about this? It might feel important now because the film was just released... I think maybe we need some kind of Cinema Wiki. Anyone want to help me out on that? Bradybd 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Never mind a cinema Wiki, there's already a Pirates of the Caribbean wiki [1]. EliminatorJR Talk 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well then, there we go! Maybe this article should be featured on the Pirates of the Caribbean wiki instead? I have taken the idea of a Cinema Wiki to heart though. Take a peek at Cinepedi.org [2]... If anyone is interested in helping, send me an email to cinepedi.org or drop by my talk page. Bradybd 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge or Redirect. Clearly we do not need or want this kind of thing, which is indeed just plain silly. The article does not address "a rather important issue" (?) as one editor suggested above and is not notable in the slightest. It is also completely unsourced--a reader has no idea where any of this information is coming from and it does sound more like a commercial for a Disney product. I don't want wikipedia to have an article like this any more than I want an article called "That scene in When Harry Met Sally where they meet up at Katz's Deli to talk and then she pretends to have an orgasm." Also the inclusion of a paragraph on each of the nine pirates is completely unnecessary and off topic, such as it is.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The paragraphs on the nine Pirate Lords were moved there after their individual articles were deleted. --Hemlock Martinis 01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad they were deleted, all the more reason for them not to show up again here. Basically part of the goal of this article is obviously to include content--namely descriptions of the nine Pirate Lords--that had already been judged unworthy of inclusion in wikipedia. It's not a good basis for an article in my opinion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
But this isn't just a page on characters, it's on the whole organisation; I completely agree with you that individual characters pages on the people would be horrid, and I'd want them deleted too, but together and with sources, it should work. As soon as I'm able to access the history logs, I'll be able to source some more, so please wait a little longer or some please address my review. Therequiembellishere 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Strongest keep: This article can be useful. --SkyWalker 09:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is part of our culture. --Heliumballoon 10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Both of the preceding keep votes don't really provide a rationale. Just because an article is "useful" does not at all mean it is encyclopedic. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to create useful web pages. Also the statement that "the article is part of our culture" is completely subjective (and highly, highly dubious, suggesting that any old thing that gets thrown on the web is "part of our culture"). More importantly, it is not part of the criteria for whether we keep an article or not. Perhaps the last two editors can provide some stronger rationale for their votes beyond what basically amounts to "I like this article"?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If you read, we have plenty of resources, the official site, the producers, the actors, news articles that the company submitted, the junior novelisation and the Guide to name a few. Therequiembellishere 12:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The bar tends to be set at sources independant of the subject, its creators, or those directly linked to it. The sources should also be present in the article, either as inline citations or as a bibliography, so that somebody with little or no prior knowledge (i.e. me) can come along, look at the article, look at the sources, and go "Yep, this is all correct. Score one for Wikipedia". -- saberwyn 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep, List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean is overstuffed and this is a good article for these characters. Alientraveller 12:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You have no problem with the OR nature of this article? Corvus cornix 17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What's OR that you have a problem with? --Hemlock Martinis 23:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Almost every sentence of it. Where is all of this character history coming from? Corvus cornix 03:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
From either the movie or the Visual Guide. I've removed almost everything that isn't from those two sources (except for the thing about Capitaine Cheville resembling a character from another movie since I haven't seen that movie). --Hemlock Martinis 03:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can find a source making that comparison, it's original research and should be removed. *** Crotalus *** 05:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've put up the official site as a source for much of the information, some is sourced directly from the movie and is stated as such. There was another website that we got a lot of information from, but I can't recall it. Anetode, could you let me access the history log of the original Brethren of the Coast page? Someone mentioned in in one of their edits and if I can get it, I'll be able to source a lot more. Many thanks--Therequiembellishere 05:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Admins aren't allowed to show deleted material. --Hemlock Martinis 05:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Therequiem, please request that at WP:DRV#Content_review. This seems like a reasonable request to me, I don't see why it can't be granted. --Dhartung | Talk 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Other wikis and official websites are not reliable sources. Corvus cornix 20:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I realise that wikis aren't, but I disagree about the official website, that's the core of where a lot of pages get their information. Don't worry, I'm not using a single wiki as a source on any page and never will.Therequiembellishere 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep-it's too long to be nicely merged, and it is one of the most important parts in the film. A little style editing would help though. GoldengloveContribs ·Talk 17:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The fact that "it's too long to be nicely merged" is not a valid argument for keep, otherwise nonsense articles that were "long" and un-mergeable would have to be kept. And it may be an important part of the film, but do you really think wikipedia should have articles on "the most important parts" of all of the notable films ever made? Why can't we limit the discussion of the important parts of the plot to the article on the film itself?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Especially since most of the trivia in this article is not from the film. Corvus cornix 23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, since there is apparently a dedicated Pirates of the Caribbean wiki for this kind of trivia. Offer to transwiki it there if they want it. *** Crotalus *** 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Not trying to be nasty. Just curious if you have any specific reasons why you think it should be kept? Thanks so much. Bradybd 16:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. This thing needs some cleanup, but it's more than salvageable.Darkfrog24 14:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It may be salvageable, but does it belong on Wikipedia? Bradybd 16:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep it's an interesting article, what is to be gained by getting rid of it?

The integrity of Wikipedia. Corvus cornix 22:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Unsigned comment by an SPA, also again the fact that it is "interesting" is not at all a reason for keeping. Can you provide a better reason than that?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep, keep, keep!!! (struck duplicate vote) What do you have to prophet by deleting it? You have much to loose and nothing to gain. It will not be as emphasized as it needs to be in another page. Its perfect as it is. --24.56.216.190 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is almost becoming comical/absurd. This entry doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I think it would do well in the PotC Wiki or in a Cinema/Television wiki. Bradybd 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Still not really a valid argument for keep and the entry is obviously far from "perfect," also this editor has few edits outside of the Pirates of the Caribbean topic.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
True as though that may be, I've just rebegun my Wikipedia experience. Pirates is where I decided to begin my journey. Locke 05:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Ive edited to remove references to the video game, but this article is definately worth keeping as there in no other information regarding these secondary charcaters from the film. Not to mention the article covers some of the mythology of the canon of Pirates Of The Caribbean, otherwise not found in any other articles. Robnubis 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep under the "library of Alexandria" theory. Thanos6 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Remind me again how that theory fits in with actual guidelines, WP:N, WP:RS etc? EliminatorJR Talk 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is a worthy article that could still use some clean-up. It needs to be kept, or at the very least, merged. Pirateking89
"Worthy" in what sense? Corvus cornix 23:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Looks to me like we have some sock-puppetry going on here. User PirateKing89 just registered today. Anyhow, I still haven't seen any valid arguments to keep this article. I think that it should at the most be merged. Bradybd 19:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of these keep votes provide no rationale whatsoever and until they do I think they should be at least somewhat discounted. Under this last keep argument, if I created an article that listed my address and my favorite color we would have to keep it because it is "information." Though there's a lot of keep votes, most simply do not provide a valid reason why we should keep this thing other than what basically amounts to variations on WP:ILIKEIT. That's just not good enough.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. If it's true and verifiable it should stay. Turning it around; these delete votes provide no rationale except "I don't want it here." Thanos6 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Simply not true. The delete votes say that the topic is not notable, does not use reliable sources, and violates WP:OR. There are clear cut rationales for deletion beyond "I don't want it here" because they refer to wikipedia guidelines and policies. The same cannot be said of the keep votes.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
As opposed to the 'Keep' votes, which are a combination of WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, and no rationale at all? You can take inclusionism too far, you know. EliminatorJR Talk 22:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No. No you can't. Thanos6 08:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Yes you can!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the asssessment that my comment should be disregarded. We are an encyclopedia, we provide credible information to users. For inclusion: 1. Does the article have references? = yes 2. Are the references credible and verifiable? = yes 3. Is the topic notable? = for the topic as a *sub* article, yes 4. Are free images available? = not at all possible. So, please tell me why this should be deleted? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Extremely Strong and Speedy Keep This article is important and crucial to the plot of Pitares of the Caribbean, and thuse warrants a speedy keep. CaptPicard 00:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable group from a notable series. They are more prominent than most of the minor characters. gren グレン 02:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable council from a very notable movie series. Gateman1997 02:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Redirect: While I think some of the posters suffer from a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that this stems from a Disney film (they should ask themselves, would they be as opposed if it was about some nonsense from Lord of the Rings), I have to agree that this belongs more in a Pirates or cinema wiki. If the film directors couldn't see fit to fill out their characters, why should wikipedia?
  • Delete, then redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean 3 (or whatever the movie is called). This is a blatant violation of several parts of both WP:NOT (not a plot summary, not a random collection of information) and WP:FU (the non-free images are the most obvious problem, but not the only one), as well as violating WP:OR. —Angr 06:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree on both counts: See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia (Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.). On Fair use images: Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. -- the images are used for critical commentary on each character. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Having the pirate lords on a different page then the other minor characters is better than cramming them into the minor characters page. Rhino131 16:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Quite relevant to the film, I'd say. A list of the respective characters, well organized. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Relevent to the film and, if expanded, could become a good article (not an official good article, but an article that is good). Definately keep. Ixistant 23:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article contains infomation on little known characters and can be expanded on later. (Iuio 06:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
  • Strong Keep This is an interesting article with great potential, it is a travesty that it is up for deletion. Laurellien 23:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to minor characters and the plot section of At World's End. Perhaps having 3 seperate pages for minor characters that only appear in only one of the films might work instead (keeping one for the "entire" series for characters that appear in more than one). If none of the above works rename to "List of characters in the Brethren Court". Radagast83 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above Cyclone49 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel like there are a lot of blind Keeps here, simply because it covers part of a film that was just released two weekends ago. Are we really thinking about whether Brethren Court needs its own entry? Bradybd 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently we are. --Hemlock Martinis 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Same could be said for keeping. All depends on ones perspective. Bradybd 00:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Barbarossa359 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to either List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean or Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. DHowell 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, for several reasons: First, the Brethren Court is a key plot point in the third Pirates movie, just as the Council of Elrond was a key point in the first (but not the second or third) Lord of the Rings movie. If you look at At World's End from a standpoint of the fact that it is a movie on its own in addition to being part of a major motion picture trilogy, then these go from being minor characters to major characters with regards to the third movie's plot. Second, the Brethren Court is a romanticized version of real Brethren Court. This gives it some notability as being somewhat a dramatization of an actual historical organization. Third, because it meets guidelines for notability based off of 235 thousand hits on google and, again, being part of a major motion picture trilogy. So in conclusion, based on the way the article is written, it portrays the Brethren Court as being a large plot device in At World's End exclusively, in which it did play a large role. Based on this, I can see its notability in regards to the third film, but not the whole trilogy. Thank you. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 14:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment 235,000 GHits? No, just 466 actually. EliminatorJR Talk 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment "Brethren Court" actually garners 52,100 GHits. Therequiembellishere 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Commemt "Brethren Court Pirates" garners exactly 7 hits. Bradybd 20:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to be rude, but people will generally leave of the "Pirates" I believe most people will search either Brethren Court (without quotes) and get 1,320,000 GHits of search "Brethren Court" (with quotes) and get 51,500 Ghits. Therequiembellishere 20:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This way, I get 42,000. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The number of google hits (whatever they are) do not necessarily make the case for notability To continue with the example I raised in my original vote post (i.e. we would not want an article on the orgasm scene in When Harry Met Sally), if I google "When Harry Met Sally" and "orgasm" I get over 31,000 hits. But so what? It doesn't mean we have an article about that scene because it's been referenced on the web a lot, and the same applies here. Anyway, many if not most of the google hits for "Brethren Court" only make casual reference to the Brethren Court and/or are promotional or shopping web sites for the movie.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was actually thinking the amount of Google hits doesn't constitute whether an article should stay... although if you type "orgasm" into Google, you will get an awful lot of hits XD ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Therequiem brought this up on my talk page and I thought it might help to clarify my position on this discussion page: As you may have noticed my official 'vote' was Strong Merge or Strong Redirect. I don't want the information deleted, but I'm not convinced it needs its own page. Sometimes it seems like Wikipedia covers fictional characters, events, locations, ideas, etc. more than it covers history and the world in which we actually live. Because of the historical existence of a loose organization of pirates in the Caribbean called the Brethren, I hate to see the real world topic confused with and obscured by a scene from a Disney film. Perhaps if we changed the title of the page to Brethren of the Coast (Pirates of the Caribbean). Bradybd 05:41, 7 June 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.