Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brethren of the Coast

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 Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. If after the release of the film there are enough reliable sources discussing the Brethren to warrant an article, it can easily be restored. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WjBscribe 12:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brethren of the Coast[edit]

Fictional organization set to appear in an upcoming action-adventure film. No assertion of notability, no references, plenty of questionable fair use images. Unnecessary fanservice. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!: This is absurd, might as well delete Dumbledore's Army from Harry Potter and the Council of Elrond of Lord of the Rings! And the fact that the Lords are considered to have a backstory and to have existed for hundreds of years and how the former two have no backstory and the Army existed for a few months and the Council for one day. Therequiembellishere 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily were not discussing Dumbledore's Army or the Council of Elrond, or any fiction other than Pirates of the Caribbean. Do the "Brethren of the Coast" have any notability outside of the film? Have they been covered in multiple non-trivial sources? Are they in any way important as anything more than a plot device in a Disney flick? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The backstory may go back hundreds of years, but the story is only a couple of years old at best, coming from a gaggle of near-anonymous screenwriters. Not in the same league as Rowling or Tolkien. DarkAudit 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. DarkAudit 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not notable enough for its own article. Ford MF 06:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, but delete the articles on individual pirate lords except Jack Sparrow, Hector Barbossa, and Sao Feng. The "Brethren of the Coast" are clearly intended to be an important part of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, and no doubt the article will be in much better shape when the film is released in less than two weeks. If the images are not appropriate, then nominate them for deletion separately. *** Crotalus *** 07:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does every important plot device in a blockbuster movie deserve a separate article, or just this one? If so, why? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar plot devices in other major film series often do have separate articles, as mentioned above. If you think they shouldn't, that is a defensible position, but according to the standards now in place this is acceptable. I do think the fair use gallery should be deleted since it doesn't have any commentary and doesn't meet our standards for inclusion of fair use images. *** Crotalus *** 07:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standards now in place are not dictated by personal preference, they are codified by fairly clear Wikipedia policies (WP:FICT, WP:OR, WP:NOT, a few others). Perhaps if I had run across the other examples offered by Therequiembellishere, we would be discussing their deletion instead. I don't think that the purported precedent of crufty fan service (o.r.) justifies the purported notability of this subject. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as this organisation is not notable outside of the Pirates of the Caribbean milieu. Lankiveil 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, agree with Crotalus, they are a key part of the movie. If it is deleted now, it will just be made into a new page that will probably have even less verifiable information. Might as well get ahead of the game Skhatri2005 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the fair-use gallery and marked all the images (except this one, which is also used in Hector Barbossa) for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First concern is that 'Brethren of the Coast' was, as far as I'm aware, historically used to describe a society of real pirates/buccaneers. Yet there's no mention of that here - the only important thing seems to be what happens in the film (and yes, I'm a big fan of POTC myself). Second is the spoiler element. POTC:AWE isn't released everywhere yet - it might be worth a little consideration for those who haven't had chance to see it. - Shrivenzale 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The movie comes out in 6 days leave it be till at least then so a proper decision can be reached. It may wind up that the breathren of the coast are hugely important to the story line On3manarmy 02:10, 19 May 2007 (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.