Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brethren Court (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trystan (talk | contribs) at 17:10, 30 January 2008 (→‎Brethren Court). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Brethren Court

AfDs for this article:
Brethren Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Pure cruft. 43 KB on a topic that is only present in one film? Fails the requirements of WP:FICT by containing no out of universe details. David Fuchs (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would have just redirected it flat-out...but I'll vote comment on the dicussion page for this topic and say delete as there are no independent sources for the article. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indefinite keep. Its an important topic for the franchise and NO, its not in just that movie. And what do you mean "no independent sources"? We have at least 6. You can not merge all of this information into another article and have it run smoothly, nor can you delete it without sacrificing alot of info. I'm really getting sick of all the crap POTC is getting for having too many articles. Star Wars seems like it takes up practically 1/2 of wikipedia's articles. I'd nominate a few of the character pages that are little more than stubs, like Sao Feng. Articles like that can fall back into this one - another reason to keep it. Put these deletion nominations where they count. --Count Mall (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources that are not the novel, the official site, etc. A reliable third party that has commented on it. Or, at the very lesat, information from the creators about why they created this court, their comparisons to the real world, what inspired it, etc. This has absolutely nothing but a long, convoluted plot and summary of characters. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If thats all that its lacking you should have said something on the talk page before. We can add that easy. Dont be so deletion nomination-happy next time. --Count Mall (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have five days. If you can do it, this nomination will be sunk. And David nominated the article, not me. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is absolutely ridiculous. The page has gone under several revisions, and it's been accepted that it's now at its best. if you want to change something, go to the talk page first. I agree with Count Mall. This is a hasty and uncalled for deletion and I ask for its immediate withdrawal. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Therequiembellishere; this information must be kept on because it provides a close look at the characters of the Brethren Court, something which is more than just a little pertinent for this continuity. Perhaps, though, redirecting the page for the Brethren Court to the "Minor Characters" page would not be out of line.--KnowledgeLord (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indefinite keep I agree with the above, everything is right exactly as it is. No redirections, no merges, nothing. Just leave it as it is, it is a product of many discussions at its current state. Zisimos (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Delete (see below) I don't see much difference between this article and the thousands of other articles about elements of fictional works. The Star Wars example given above is a good example of this point. This article covers a lot of detail that wouldn't fit in the main article for the movie. --L. Pistachio (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. David Fuchs (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that essay, which is not policy. In fact, I'll quote directly from it: "...it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged..."--L. Pistachio (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote of keep is not based on any valid policy, whereas David has. David has stated that this article does not meet FICT. None of the three people who have voted keep have disproved that statement. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So. We still voted. The votes till count. You're sounding very sppiled. Again, if theres a problem, say so on the damn talk page and don't be so racist against POTC. --Count Mall (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD's are not votes- any comments that do not cite policy et al may be discounted. As for us being racist against a fictional work, I believe that would qualify for a 'lol'. David Fuchs (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If these arent votes, than what are? And your last name qualifies as an lol, fucher! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countmall (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I haven't heard that one a million times... very original. To the more germane point, from WP:AFD, "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." David Fuchs (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, racist against POTC, good one. (not) hbdragon88 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've establised that.--Count Mall (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I'll say that I don't necessarily agree with everything in WP:FICT. However I can't dispute that this article violates WP:NOT#PLOT. --L. Pistachio (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then why not address that on the talk page and state that the page need to stay more focused on its topic? Why jump immediately to an AFD? (Btw, I realise you aren't the nominator). I'll say again, this nomination need to be shut down and the discussion moved to the talk page where it belongs. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Also, I can't be sure but it looks as if you got your mop and bucket on 24 January and are trying out your new status on this page. Not meant to be entirely accusative, that's just what it looks like from the look of your userpage. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you insinuate that I attempted to influence the vote! I went though the history and the talk page and told them simply that an AfD was in order and asked them to join the discussion. Their is no rule against asking people to join. I didn't go up to them and write, "Hey, make sure we keep this one alive!" Don't accuse me of canvassing, it makes it seem much more like you're attempt to sway the vote. In any case you notified the creator of the page, why shouldn't I notify those who edit it most consistently?! Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered, Fuchs. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually suggested at the AFD page: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion....". Also, please remain civil. Thanks. BLACKKITE 01:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the article contains a lot of information that has been possibly acquired through painstaking research. It is definately informative and it is in an acceptable format. Simply go in and remove the Fan Cruft. The Lord Voldemort page was full of fan cruft and it has been stabilized by editors and maintained clean. Why can't we just do that for this article as well. Why delete it! Seriously, just remove the cruft and leave the page in existance. Finally, it maintains a crucial role in the seires, and that amount of information can not simply be deleted. I must say that many have put an effort into this article and to simply delete (instead of improving) is outrageous and extremely ludicrous! Hpfan1 (Hpfan1) 12:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There is no such thing as fancruft, nor a non-notable article. The notability rule must be destroyed.Thanos6 (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this page has a lot of useful information for the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Also, it must have taken forever to compile all this information. Deleting it would be a punch in the face to all the people who have worked on it. Flamingtorch372 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Brethren Court is a major factor in the movies, particularly At World's End. Sure, it could stand to be cleaned up a bit, but that in itself is no reason to delete it. This article has valuable information on the pirate lords, the code, the Brethen's history, and lots of other topics that are extremely important, but would not fit into other articles. I think deleting this page would be a hasty, not to mention poor, decision. Grey Maiden talk 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Indefinitely - Wow, this is completely absurd. This isn't fancruft (or whatever else you suppose it might be) and it CERTAINLY is not something worth deleting. What I don't particularly understand is why the nominator has no desire whatsoever to improve the wonderful article rather than preposterously delete it. Quite frankly, several people, including myself, have worked many a day (and night, mind you) to write this, and it IS quite important to keep it in Wikipedia due to the fact that it plays quite a huge role in the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy. I suggest you keep your hat on and choose a particularly idiotic article to delete rather than articles as important as this. Enough said. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 20:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wonder if there is any way the information about flags and their real-world users (or at least a similar version) could be sourced? That might be nice to see. shasYarr!/T|C 20:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further: The stuff about the flags might be considered out-of-universe relevance, David? shasYarr!/T|C 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC) (again)[reply]
  • Redirect - The article should redirect to the main article with a link to the POTC Wiki which already contains the Brethren Court article. See the following guideline from W:FICT
Relocating non-notable fictional material
Fictional material unsuited or too detailed for Wikipedia can be transwikied to the appropriate Wikia, such as Final Fantasy Wikia and Wookieepedia.
The information and work is preserved in the appropriate place and does not add further clutter to English Wikipedia. On the subject of "fancruft," the information is relevant to understanding the plot of the third movie, and both a passing moviegoer and die-hard fan could find it useful. However, it has no current notability in outside, unoffocial sources, so it does not meet standards to have a place on Wikipedia proper. Cybertooth85 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete or Redirect to the main article with a short summary and, as noted above, a link to the POTC Wiki. There is a possibility that this could become a viable article, but this isn't it; it's 43K of plot summary and what may well be original research, backed up by no reliable sources whatsoever, and more importantly it's hardly been improved at all since the first AfD - it's just got longer with the addition of more trivia. The only Keep above that even attempts to defend the article on policy-based reasons is the first, and that's factually incorrect - there aren't 6 independent sources; in fact since the Yahoo! article is almost certainly a Disney-sponsored advert, there aren't any. BLACKKITE 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but are you saying that the company who owns the franchise isn't a reliable source? Because all of the sources do come from the owner. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually, most of the references are other Wikipedia articles, which is not allowed anyway. But yes, the company that owns the franchise is a primary source. Wikipedia's verifiability policy says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources..." (in fact, it's the very first sentence). There is nothing wrong with primary sources, as long as an article isn't sourced only by them. Cannot some secondary sources be found to source this article? To fix this, I think you'd have to do this, and trim most or all of the plot summary and original research out of the article. That might (and it's a stretch) just about sort it. BLACKKITE 23:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the main article and perhaps, add a link to the POTC Wiki. Just my two cents. Bradybd (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is this a loving tribute to a fun movie franchise or an obsessive compendium of minutiae? It sure isn't an encyclopedia article. Policy soup: WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYN, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect and protect to avoid the inevitable edit war. An article on Wikipedia has to pass WP:V and WP:N. Put together, that says that an article has to be composed primarily of information derived from third-party sources. This article has none.Kww (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Needs multiple reliable sources, and no amount of "keep" votes that have nothing to do with policy should persuade us otherwise. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Point Being that this doesn't need to be deleted. Yes, there could be a third source, which would gladly be added in...soon...by a contributor. On the other hand, just nominating an article for deletion when such an easy, simple task such as sourcing could be done in seconds...why didn't you and/or others just post a message on the talk page? Makes us all look like we're working ourselves off for nothing! Just my two pence. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 05:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are so many non-primary sources available, why haven't they been added in the six months since it was mentioned at the last AfD, instead of more trivia and original research? I've looked myself and there appears to be very little available, at least online. BLACKKITE 07:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it wasn't the top of the line issue last time. If you'd talked to us and given us time, we might have avoided this completely. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, it seems highly unlikely that there are several reliable sources which will establish the notability of this subject, given that none has so far been located. Without evidence to the contrary, the "Brethren Court" warrants a brief mention in the movie's plot synopsis, and nothing more in Wikipedia.--Trystan (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the respect! I think people are forgetting the larger purpose of the page however: the Court members themselves. Remove the page and the characters disappear and they certainly have quite a large amount of reliable information to them. If you are going to delete the page it is imperative that you move the character information to their proper places (the minor characters page and the main articles). Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be a good idea as a temporary measure, but moving the content around within WP isn't really the answer. We should only include as much plot and character descriptions as we need to provide a context for critical, out-of-universe discussion. I think the many PotC character articles should be interwikied and deleted, merged, or pared down considerably. This seems like a good place to start.--Trystan (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving the brief characters descriptions to List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean would be reasonable. That article could definitely do with being trimmed, though; there are really minor characters that could be removed, and far too much plot summary about others (half a page of plot summary about a monkey, for example!). BLACKKITE 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like suggesting this here, but as I hardly edit it,Ihope someone else will here will suggest it there. I believe that they should be split up in minors in CotBP, minors in DMC, minors in AWD and minors spanning more than one film. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but the only pirates out of all lords that we've seen in movies except for At World's End are Jack Sparrow and Barbossa....I'm trying to say that we wouldn't be able to span the rest of them across CotBP, DMC, and AWE unless you mean just Sparrow and Barbossa, in which case I'm okay with it. However, I don't see why we should delete this. I understand Fuchs's reason for wanting to delete the Pirate's Code Guidelines article, but this is just a step too far. Next thing we know, the List of Minor Characters will be nominated for deletion as well. And, BlackKite, there are several books out there that are quite relevant to the Brethren Court Lords. If this page lasts until a couple weeks from now, I'll be able to buy them and source the article properly (I can only buy it then with Birthday Money). I've read several of those books myself, so quite frankly, yes, there are a lot of sources. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 01:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't what I said. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was commenting not only you, but Black Kite's reference to there being a scarce amount of sources. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. There is an excellent PotC wiki that serves as a much more appropriate home for this sort of in-universe compilation.--Trystan (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion I've noticed that the Codes Guidleines book have been deleted, too. Why doesnt anyone go after the pinball machine or any article thats small and stupid like that?--Count Mall (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brethren_Court_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=187949344"