Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cirith Ungol

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 merge to

Cirith Ungol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

A fictional place with apparently no real world significance. Perhaps this belongs as part of a "Places in Lord of the Rings article" or something like that?

• Delete Although I am a fan, this probably belongs in a LOTR fan wiki. It would be almost meaningless to someone who hadn't read the book. -Steve Dufour (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to
  Minor places in Middle-earth; merge some of it to Mordor. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is complicated because doing anything with the
  Minor places in Middle-earth and Cirith Ungol (band).—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and redirect to
  Minor places in Middle-earth and add a hatnote there for the band ("Cirith Ungol redirects ...."); two items isn't enough for a dab page. Merge the little that's not Two Watchers plot details to Minor places. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The topic has great notability, being covered in the numerous works of criticism and analysis of LotR. The place is an important setting in the work and there is not the slightest case for deletion. The nominator seems to understand this too as he proposes a merger/rename. Per
  WP:BEFORE, AFD is not the right place for issues which can be addressed by ordinary editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That's why I suggested the article would be better for a project "in the work." Steve Dufour (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2010 (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.