Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cutler Beckett


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cutler Beckett

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable fictional character from the Pirates of the Caribbean series. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources and the bulk of the article is pure, unadulterated WP:OR and personal opinions, along with chunks of plot summary from the two films in the series he appearance in. Referenced statements are from films except two, which are support OR rather than actually having anything to do with the character. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:N, and WP:WAF. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —--  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * AnmaFinotera, I know you're only trying to help but do you have to delete every single fictional character article? Beckett is one of the main characters in Pirates of the Caribbean AND he's the main antagonist thereby making him key to the plot. If you delete this article then you might as well delete the ones on Jack Sparrow and Davy Jones as well. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not make falsely dramatic statements. I do not "delete" anything, I suggest articles should be deleted, nor do I suggest every fictional character article be deleted, only those for unnotable characters. Jack Sparrow and Davy Jones both significant coverage in reliable third party sources, as shown by their articles, and Sparrow's being FA. Beckett does not, irregardless of his role in the film (and being an antagonist alone nor "key to the plot" does not make him notable for his own article. Both film articles have plot summaries addressing his role. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep since there will likely be an article rescue attempt that will deceptively play up the significance of the topic (such as using a sentence in someone's review of the film to make it sound relevant). Recommend withdrawing the AFD nomination and instead seek to merge/redirect outside this particular realm. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep He is a main character of the latter two films and therefore has notability, the article is referenced and is detailed, and as Erik has said above, it will just be recreated if it is deleted. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 16:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Being a main character does not assert notability; receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject does. Since the films are obviously notable, the main character will obviously be referenced in the context of these films.  The question is, is there significant enough coverage of the character to warrant his own article?  Is there anything that can be said about the character that cannot be said at the film articles, which have "Cast" sections to host such detail?  I don't expect this article to be deleted because the significance will be misrepresented (just follow the article and its AFD) since there will be a hodge-podge of every passing mention of Cutler Beckett to give the illusion of major coverage outside the films themselves.  There is a film series article that can be pretty encompassing of all things related to the trilogy; I recommend following up with a merge to this article after the closure of this AFD. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Despite being notionally a major villain, he seems to have made little impression on audiences, and I'm unaware of any particular reviewer or fan interest in this figure. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as main character of notable works. I consider that the developing consensus here is definitely that such characters are intrinsically at least somewhat notable, and we should write what we best can based on whatever RSs there are, including the work itself. whether the articles should be combined into combination articles is a unresolved matter of style. DGG (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and others. Major character of multiple films, and consensus in such cases appears to be to keep such articles. JulesH (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. No real world context. The JPS talk to me  13:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  13:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of characters in Pirates of the Caribbean: the only thing I ever recall the writers discussing about Beckett is that the East India Trading Company represents the opposite of the freedom of a pirates' life, but he's really tangential. Reception wise, he's been compared to Palpatine ("small angry man syndrome" - Empire magazine), and was called by one AICN review the blandest villain ever - albeit with the coolest exit. Not enough for a whole article though I reckon. Alientraveller (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Keep some useful real world context has been mentioned, add the things I've mentioned and you could get to B-class. Alientraveller (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PERNOM not be a compelling reason to delete, especially when real world context has been added. Sometimes when we do searches for fictional characters we maybe only get results on Google Books, or only get mentions in reviews on Google News, but in this case we get significant out of universe coverage in reliable secondary sources on Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, and even Amazon.com.  Thus, we have a character with appearances in a major franchise including films, novels, and toys and who is discussed out of universe in multiple published books and newspapers.  Meets the current draft of WP:FICT in any event and given the precedent of Articles for deletion/Black Pearl, deletion is clearly not the route to take.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvement. You could get a GA out of this if you really wanted to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PERNOM -- the character is significant in his contribution to the story of the fims he appears in. Like Long John Silver in Treasure Island, his rols is in now way a minor one.  The information about him is derived from the films and EU books.  These are the only possible sources, just as the novel of Treasure Island is the only information source about Long John Silver.  Deleting the article and relegating it to a list of characters article just can not be justifiesd.  There is too much information to place as part of a larger article.  He's too significant a character to warrant only listing his name as the only information to place here.  And he is most definetly not Unnotable! --Jason Palpatine (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for expansion and sourcing. If it can be made worthy of wiki, it should be so. Deletion is a last resort that should not be considered until all other available options have been considered.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:23, 28 January 2009 (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.