Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ships 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships in Pirates of the Caribbean[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article shows no notability. While Pirates of the Caribbean may be notable, I see no evidence that any of it's ships carry any of this notability. While we are generally less harsh on lists, there are certain standards that everything must pass. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arrghh! Walk the plank. Random bits of in-universe trivia. Black Pearl and Flying Dutchman have their own articles, with apparently inadequate citations for notability. Maybe we should make them dance the hempen jig as well. Ma^t_chups 13:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Walk the plank per Matchups, but disagree alot on the idea of deleting Black Pearl and Flying Dutchman both have strong potential in being treated from a real world perspective and being well done, Sadads (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean and Salt - While they might have little chance of being notable, I think deleting might be harsh. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists because it is trivial, non-encyclopedic and it is not related to human knowledge. With no references, the content fails verifiability, so the article is original research, and, with no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject, there is no presumption that it meets the general notability guideline per the criteria of notability for stand-alone list. The list is an unnecessary content fork composed of a plot-only description of a fictional work, material appropriate for a fansite, not Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appropriate for a fansite, but not for Wikipedia. Consists of WP:PRIMARY sources which are not acceptable in and of themselves to prove an article's notability under the WP:GNG. I could continue, but it's all basically been said. This article does not and cannot provide information that wouldn't be better stored in the Pirates of the Caribbean article itself. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 16:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.