Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References and Similarities within Pirates of the Caribbean Films


 * 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 Snow Delete. Peacent 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

References and Similarities within Pirates of the Caribbean Films

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm as big a fan of Pirates of the Caribbean as anyone, but this article is the very definition of fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, no matter how nifty that information is to us fans. The timing of this article's creation is also rather curious, as I truly doubt this information would be considered noteworthy in its own right if the movie trilogy were not particularly popular right now due to the recent release of PotC3. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keel-haul (i.e. DELETE) - This is not only totally indiscriminate and unorganized, but is 100% fancruft original research. Arrrrrrgh, make this one walk the plank, matey! --Hnsampat 01:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into the Pirates of the Caribbean films or the specific movie articles, and either delete or redirect this page. ikh (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Avast, ye swabs!...er, Delete as fancruft. Eddie.willers 02:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Pirates of the Caribbean films, perhaps as a new "trivia" section? INBN 02:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Walk thee Plank as per ye olde tome of what this 'ere encyclopedia is nary to include. Yarrr!  --Haemo 02:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no merge; original research is original research, whether it's in its own article or part of another. Masaruemoto 03:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR, listcruft. -- MarcoTolo 03:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR, without any kooky pirate jargon. Ford MF 04:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, cruft, etc. Maxamegalon2000 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to the Pirates Wikia, where this belongs and will find an audience. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom-&mdash; arf! 07:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Lmblackjack21 10:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and trivia. Much better to do a quality version of Recurring themes in Pirates of the Caribbean films. Alientraveller 14:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because this is not in any sense encyclopedic content. It is only a compilation of personal observations, which constitutes original research.  Save nothing, either. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Harrrr as fancruft Martijn Hoekstra 16:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fancruft like this makes me wish we had an appropriate CSD. /Blaxthos
 * I understand the sentiment... I wouldn't go so far as to say it's worty of CSD, but I definitely wish that the whole "anyone can remove a prod for any or no reason at all, and it can never be replaced" thing was changed so at very least, removal by an anonymous IP with no other edits and no edit summary given wouldn't count! That's exactly what happened here. --Icarus (Hi!) 17:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yo Ho Ho - Delete I agree with Cap'n Blaxthos.  Jody B   talk 17:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - I think this article should be merged into the main article of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.12.192.135.136 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Arrrr, Delete, me hearties -- there be no reason to keep it. (Yes, that be lame pirate speak.) Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Deep-Six or Commandeer (delete or merge) This thing is fun, but not quite up to wiki's standard.Darkfrog24 02:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * stab it all we need now is krimpet to close it, and then it'll be a laugh fest. Whsitchy 05:16, 3 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.