Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of objects in Pirates of the Caribbean


 * 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   delete. Such a list is not notable in itself; independent, reliable third-party sources are required for inclusion. Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean this should. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

List of objects in Pirates of the Caribbean

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

Thoroughly trivial and non-encyclopedic, with some fan-site type speculation thrown in. Content fork on the movie plot summaries elsewhere, and there are no sources independent of the subject that establish notability sufficient to support having such an article separate from the various pirates of the caribbean articles already extent (40 or so others. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since this kind of list is not encyclopedic. Not even here. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 'keep because this sort of list is encyclopedic, and the material not only can be sourced, but is sourced, to both the primary source, accepted as a source for plot and related material like this, and also a secondary published source. Trivial=I DON'T THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, PERSONALLY, which is an exceedingly weak argument. The % of things in Wikipedia that i don't think important personally is very high, and. in fact, I don't think this important myself, but that's not a reason for deletion--if it were, I'd suggest deleting all the wrestlers and such. DGG (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and remove the wrestlers, and the monster trucks, and the pornstars...but leave the solar eclipses and the movies please (I have a use for those sometimes). My problem, and I should have been more specific, is the in-universe aspect (is that the proper term?), which the "official" guidebook does not help to mitigate. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it can be sourced to the primary source (I am assuming you refer to the movies) and a secondary source (assuming you refer to the official Pirates of the Caribbean guidebook) does not help to satisfy the requirements for inclusion, because the first is a movie (making the article essentially a plot summary), and the second, is little more than a plot summary with in-universe background info. Either way the article fails WP:PLOT.  TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the issue here where the material belongs? I don't dispute that sourcable material belongs somewhere on wikipedia, but why not weave it into the plot narratives of the appropriate movies?  If it doesn't fit naturally into those narratives, it probably doesn't belong on wikipedia.  Cazort (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the objects can be sourced, I have no problem with their inclusion in the individual movie articles (if they can't be a passing mention can be used in the plot summaries). The issue I have is that the sources mentioned are not reliable third-party sources, they are an official guidebook (which only speaks to in-universe notability, not actual notability) and the movies themselves.  If third-party sources could be found (for each item) I would be in favour of allowing this list; however, until it can be demonstrated that these items meet our guidlines for notability, and reliable source, they should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good point, I am in complete agreement with you here! This would be the difference between for example, star trek articles on Memory Alpha and on Wikipedia.  Cazort (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I wish to move away from the non-encyclopedic argument (which I would argue it is)to the fact that it doesn't meet WP:N. Individual items/props from notable films do not inherit the notability of their film, if they did we would have Darth Vadar's Mask, List of objects in Star Wars, List of objects in the Wizard of Oz, etc., which would be impossible to maintain. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep yet rename - say, List of canonical objects in Pirates of the Caribbean? I was ready to disagree with DGG and then read the article.  I personally don't like the movies series, but this is exactly the sort of stuff we need in the Category:Popular culture.  I see lots of good sources, and some marginal ones, but overall it's a rescue case. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- DGG said it really better than I could The items on the list are notable and sourceable, and just saying "its trivia!" isn't much of a reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Duplication of a licensed guide, spiced with personal observation. WP:N is still significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, and this strictly fails the "multiple" and "independent" parts. We already have all of this plot summary in the movie articles as well; we don't need it duplicated here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not listcruft, and it is a very good addendum to the Pirates of the Caribbean article. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The unusual juxtaposition of plot tidbits, focusing around objects, seems to be approaching original research to me, even if we could pare down the article to the well-written and well-sourced material.  More imporatantly, it's not clear to me why anyone would be interested in the information on this page in the format it is in.  Plot summaries on the pages of the appropriate movies seem the way to go--and then, if there is enough page to justify splitting off one particular object or two, then split off those objects--but having different (unrelated) objects together on the same page seems kinda absurd to me.  I also agree with A Man in Black's comments that we need to consider the notability guideline here--and I don't know of any source that talks about the objects from these movies as some sort of coherent entity--and I think that would be necessary in order to justify having a page on this topic.  Cazort (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Trivial and encyclopedic. Seems to be almost entirely numerous plot summaries. Definitely not independently or well sourced. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 04:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a legitimate reason for a list.  D r e a m Focus  00:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Multiple non-trivial sources is the threshold. Seems the very definition of trivia. - M  ask?  10:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the sort of interesting topic an encyclopedia can cover when we are not constrained by paper. — Reinyday, 03:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonable spinout of a major series of fictional works. A list of fictional objects is not inherently indiscriminate, and tagging it as such doesn't make it so. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Having no reasonable criteria, overarching topic, or reliable sources to guide us does make it indiscriminate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:TRIVIA, no significant independent coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:Trivia incarnate. Eusebeus (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: To the people arguing to keep...can you give any justification why keeping whatever content here is salvagable/sourceable ought to be kept on this "list" page instead of woven into the narratives on the appropriate pages of the movies? In the absence of addressing this point I think it is hard to take the arguments to keep this page seriously.  I worry that some of the statements to keep are being made without addressing any of the arguments to delete that have been given.  Cazort (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A mere mention of these objects in the plot summaries is not sufficient to help someone understand the plot of the movies. There has to be, somewhere, an explanation of what is meant by that. Comparing these objects with Darth Vader's helmet is not helpful, since that's just a helmet that serves the same purpose as any other helmet. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 11:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can believe that argument achieves an end run around the general notability guideline. Multiple reliable sources independent of subject are still required, otherwise the list should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this different from Beckett's letters of marque, which are just letters of marque, or his branding iron, which is just a branding iron, etc.? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are the parts of eight just parts of eight? Please don't put all the contents of the article into the same basket. Cleanup is another matter entirely. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but they're a brief joke easily explained in context. It looks like we have three categories of stuff here, and none of them require this list to explain them.
 * Guy's thing: This is a thing belonging to A Guy. You see it on screen in the foo scene, and it's used on Another Guy until A Third Guy takes it. (Most of Beckett's stuff.) This can always be replaced with "a branding iron," it doesn't need that much explanation.
 * Plot device: Some key object in the plot, which cannot be reasonably explained without explaining most of the plot. (The Aztec medallion, the Dead Man's Chest, the Pieces of Eight.) These are always covered in sufficient detail in the movie plot summaries, because otherwise the plot summary doesn't make any sense.
 * A background prop: Some object not really important to the story, but Pirates of the Caribbean: The Complete Visual Guide offers some fannish background info for it. (The codex, Terra Incognita). These don't need to be covered at all, as they're only important to a licensed guide of little import. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Crufty listing of plotcrap and trivia for a bunch of non-notable fictional elements. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TRIVIA. Dalejenkins | 12:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no real-world notability. Completely unsuitable to a formal encyclopedia. This content would be reasonable at a dedicated Pirates of the Caribbean wiki, if one exists. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 17 April 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.