Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 28

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 JoshuaZ 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kansagra

Kansagra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Story about a Hindu boy that reeks of

• Strong Delete Oh come on, this is such an obvious hoax...delete it as such. Calgary 22:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under WP:BLP, failing that speedy delete as (presumably) recreation of previously deleted material.
  Kappa 16:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. This is not the same article as the previously deleted Jesal Kansagra. It is related to, but not identical to the deleted article Kansagra's scribe. Also note that the single external link provided with this page is a nonexistent link, which leads me to believe that this entire article is phony. ●DanMS • Talk 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Bearian 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Funny hoax. Creative writing, but this is an encyclopedia. Madhava 1947 (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:BLP. Keb25 12:01, 31 July 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.

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 Yochai Benkler. Pascal.Tesson 00:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jalt

Jalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

• Keep - I dont see where the Prod was contested on the talk page. I just see an explanation as to why it should be kept. Benkler is a prominent figure in the free culture movement, of which Wikipedia is a part. This is a term we should all be familiar with. Danny 18:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake... the talk page includes reasons for keeping it, and the prod was removed by the 'prodder'. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Benkler was a speaker at Wikimania 2006, and is renowned for this particular essay. Why does the existence of this verifiable and detailed description harm anyone that it's in Wikipedia. Incredible that it's even being proposed here. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Comment Would you mind citing some references of its notability? Its inclusion certainly doesn't 'harm' anyone, but it still needs verifiable (

WP:NEO, I'm more than happy to reconsider my nomination. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per
  WP:NEO. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 18:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable neologism. - Cyborg Ninja 18:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the Benkler article. Non-notable neologism,
  WP:WINAD: [10]. The Evil Spartan 19:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable neologism. Will change to keep if that turns out not be true. But from the current state the article is in, I don't see that. Garion96 (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - appears to be a non-notable neologism. Prove me otherwise, people! --Haemo 23:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Benkler's article and redirect; right now, it's not much more than a definition, and as noted above, there's not a lot of sources to work with. If sources are turned up, then the redirect could be replaced in the future. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Benkler's article. The creator of a coinage does not confer notability on a
  protologism automatically. --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:01, 29 July 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.

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. Pascal.Tesson 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trickle Creek Golf Resort

Trickle Creek Golf Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

stub that was improved. I can't prove it - if it is on the website, I didn't see it - but I swear this sounds like a brochure they send out to interested golfers or tour promoters. Postcard Cathy 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC) PS By that I mean copyright vio 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, it was a pretty much a straight c&p from here[11] and hence a copyvio. I have edited back down to a stub. --Malcolmxl5 19:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And added assertation of notability and references. --Malcolmxl5 19:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Seems to make at least minimal assertion of notability, as of now there's nothing wrong with the content. Calgary 22:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless something more significant than a single reference to a star rating can be made, it doesn't meet muster as notable to me. Not everything rated 4.5 starts by some organiztion automatically qualifies as notable without more reason. Pharmboy 22:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Aarktica 22:13, 1 August 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.

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. Walton^One 18:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Choksi

Mary Choksi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Biography of a businesswoman. There is a sufficient assertion of notability to make it un-speediable but I don't believe that the criteria in

• Delete per nom --Truest blue 20:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WINARS (wikipedia is not a resume service...) Pharmboy 22:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep inadequately written., but she is on the Boards of two other major companies --this usually indicates very considerable business importance. Her positions at the World Bank might have made her notable, but I don't know what they entail--the titles could mean multiple things. DGG (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing making her stand out from the many other corporate executives at her level of accomplishment. Nothing showing passage of
  WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per DGG. Needs cites. Bearian 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until such time when criteria are developed specifically for muckety mucks a la
  WP:PROF. --Aarktica 22:06, 1 August 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.

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 & Userfy. The principal author of the page is Bradbooker, who created the page in their namespace. I have reverted their user page to the most recent version and left a note on their talk page. — Caknuck 02:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Booker

Brad Booker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject appears to be non-notable, even as stipulated in the article (host of a local morning radio show). Google does have 2000 hits, but it's not clear if it's the same Brad Booker. The Evil Spartan 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Morning guy on a local radio station; article not properly cited, leaving
  WP:V unsatisfied. Heather 23:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:BIO criteria for entertainers. --Aarktica 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Kayaker 00:42, 2 August 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.

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. —Kurykh 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuat Drive Yards

Kuat Drive Yards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nine months after original AfD, KDY still does not have an appreciable out-of-universe write-up and still lacks citations. Role in The Bounty Hunter Wars trilogy is stubbish, and I'd be okay with a redirect to that collection if such an entry exists.

I am also nominating the following related pages

Santhe/Sienar Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Incom Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Corellian Engineering Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While all four these companies may have manufactured notable things --

• Weak Delete all. I cant find any independent real world sources giving it "significant coverage". It also looks like wookiepedia has expanded articles on these. Corpx 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep all. They are notable within the star wars universe. If they were simply bare stubs I would lean towards delete, but the information is good. --Entoaggie09 22:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the point. They're only only notable in the fictional universe. Corpx 22:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, it's generally agreed that good information alone is not a good reason to delete. For example, the sex life of Lady Bird Johnson might be considered good information by some people, but it's not very notable (unless there was a huge sex scandal). For fiction, a subarticle is notable only if there is significant real-world information from primary and secondary sources. — Deckiller 01:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - it's generally agreed that good information alone is not a good reason to delete - did you mean, "not a good reason to keep"? --EEMeltonIV 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - they're mentioned a lot in the Star Wars books and stuff. However, I can't find any evidence they're even remotely important outside of this. Perhaps more useful on a Star War Wiki. --Haemo 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all; the Star Wars fanboys have left, so my "cruft dam" argument no longer has to apply (thankfully). — Deckiller 00:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This pages fits in with the entire series listed at the bottom of the article: Star Wars Companies. If this template is deleted, all of them should be and I disagree with the deletion of any of them. Despite the fact that no one is capable of sourcing the information properly, I know for a fact that the information is widespread across the literature base of Star Wars being found in many of the novels, source books, and comics. This page needs someone who can source it, but should not be deleted. And whether wookiepedia has an in-depth listing for this is irrelevant of whether this article stays or not.
  –
  Talk • Contributions ) 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - As Deckiller pointed out, having good information is not a compelling reason to keep. Yes, there being lots of information, both in the articles and in the rest of the EU, about these companies -- but is there any material out there that indicates these fictional companies have had any influence on the *real* world? (And, as an aside, I think there might be a little emotional attachment here, considering your user name is "KuatofKDY" ;-) ) --EEMeltonIV 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability inside the fictional Star Wars univerise is not a sign of real world notability. Articles are not notable. --Deskana (banana) 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia != Wookieepedia. I'd be fine with a mention on a "List of..." type article, but a full article? Nah. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:46, 1 August 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.

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, by overwhelming consensus. Mention of some of these people could be made in a related article, preferably in non-list format. El_C 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Jalpaigurians

List of notable Jalpaigurians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Should be replaced with Category:People from Jalpaigur, which I've already started Corpx 17:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pathetic list, only one blue link. Replace with category, per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, categories and lists serve different purposes. They are complementary rather than redundant (See also
  Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes). In this particular case, the redlinks are actually an advantage of the list of a category, as they allow easier creation of new articles (we are still trying to cover more encyclopedic information, aren't we?). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I strongly disagree with you. Having red links in a list is not a way to get articles created. You can request them at the appropriate wikiproject or elsewhere, but I dont think this is the way to go about it. Corpx 21:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's one blue link and six links total. Not a particularly useful list. Furthermore, the category is vaguley defined. "Notability" is a judgement call at best. From WP:LIST: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources...." eaolson 22:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TenPoundHammer and that list should be also merged (if not done) with the main article.--JForget 23:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, deleting an article is incompatible with merger. Per the
    GFDL, authorship must be preserved and in the case of Wikipedia that means article history. When merging, one of the parent articles is redirected to the other, not deleted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete -- More than two years old and still only one blue link shows this hasn't encouraged creation of the other articles, and deleting it won't prevent anyone from creating those articles later. And why "notable"? Only notable people should be added to lists, so to name them notable is redundant. Saikokira 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, who are these people anyway? (in other words, indiscriminate list.) Punkmorten 08:14, 29 July 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.

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 Keep — Caknuck 02:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soulja Boy

Soulja Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable rapper. Article attempts to assert notability by claiming his connexions with a notable record company, but it gives no independent sources. Nyttend 17:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article indicates that he has charted on the U.S. charts (verified by this Billboard search), satisfying criterion #2 of
  WP:MUSIC. I would appreciate though, if someone with a.) more knowledge of this artist, or b.) a subscription to Billboard's site would provide the complete chart history. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment What's really annoying is that my computer won't let me look at tons of pages, such as this one you provided; perhaps I have to have subscriptions that I don't have. Nyttend 17:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of those links requires a subscription. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't even look at news stories online this afternoon. It must be my Internet connexion then. Nyttend 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the record, the news article says "The highest new entry on the [Hot 100 chart] belongs to Soulja Boy, whose Crank That (Soulja Boy) debuts at number 47.". Indubitable proof that this artist has charted on a major national chart. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reuters confirms that he has charted and that he is signed with an affiliate of Interscope Records. [12]. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's charted,
  WP:MUSIC satisfied, though some better sources in the article itself would be a good idea. spazure (contribs) 04:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - the Billboard success definitely fulfills
  WP:MUSIC requirements. Does need to be fleshed out, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Soulja Boy is an amazing artist in my opinion. The least you can give him is a Wikipedia page. I mean come on show a little respect. Hakuna Matata Bitches.— Preceding
    few or no other edits
    outside this topic.

• Keep - I say keep, not only has he charted, you can download songs of his as ringtones onto many cellphones. Infinitejpower 18:47, 1 August 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.

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 and recreate a redirect. Pascal.Tesson 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Roberts

Adele Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Strong Delete. A non-noteable Reality TV contestant who has achieve nothing since the programme finished and did not make any significant contribution to the programme while she featured in it-failing
  WP:BB guides that such articles like this should be re-directed, but this user appears to disagree. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete and redir to
  Big Brother 2002 (UK) and fullprot if necessary. /Blaxthos 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT#NEWS - Known only for 1 event, and that is to appear on a reality show. I do not think that's historic notability Corpx 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete; yet another reality show nonwinner. Consensus seems to be that simply having participated is not adequate to satisfy
  WP:BIO. Heather 23:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. She's had her 15 minutes of fame. There's no long-term historical notability here. --Malcolmxl5 00:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect NN. Saikokira 01:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Protect I am the original author of this article. I disagree with the argument made by “dalejenkins”, “A non-noteable Reality TV contestant” who “did not make any significant contribution to the programme”, Adele Roberts was voted number one on “Big Brother’s Best Moments” on Channel 4 for the argument with Jade Goody. In response to the comment that she has “achieved nothing since the programme finished”, Miss Roberts has been presenting the Smooth Grooves show on 97.4Rock fm for five years (hardly an achievement of a ‘flash-in-the-pan reality TV contestant), a sister-station of Kiss Radio and member of the Emap group, which, in it’s latest RAJAR figures, was found to have more listeners than the Tim Westwood show(widely regarded as the best in his field) for her TSA, even more impressive when it is taken into account that it was in direct competition as both shows aired at the same time. I wrote this article as a listener to Miss Roberts’ show and as I was researching her for a project and thought this listing would be helpful to others to use for similar purposes. It was not intended as a ‘promotional’ article or to magnify her ‘fame’. As far as I am aware, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia intended to gather information on a vast variety of subjects, people, places etc. so it is a readily available source of learning. It is NOT however a measure of ‘fame’ or ‘celebrity’ by a person’s appearance on it and so I believe an article should not be removed purely because some users have personal dislikes or believe they are “not famous enough”. Adele Roberts could be a relevant article on Wikipedia for her job alone with no reference to Big Brother, this can be seen in the number of links on her page to other Wiki articles e.g. Artists she has interviewed and had as guests on her show (eg.50 cent, Akon, Alicia Keys, Usher, Jamie Foxx etc). I am a new user on Wikipedia, I apologise if this is a somewhat ‘hefty’ response! Not used to Wiki etiquette yet! Princess Bobie 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. That is no reason to keep the article. It reads like a trivia page-which is
  WP:N. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 09:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I completely agree with your comments that some facts need backing up; the article is a work in progress (as I said I'm new to wikipedia & still finding my feet) & I still have lots to add to the page. As you've pointed out surely the article needs more sources adding rather than deletion? Thanks for your advice Dale I'll get to work backing up a few of my facts! Princess Bobie 11:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep IIF the "Various TV" presenting roles can be expanded upon and sourced. I'd also like to see the ILR radio gig sourced. Both are notable roles outside of Big Brother that would normally warrant an article. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:18, 30 July 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.

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. —Kurykh 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequoia Middle School

Sequoia Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not obviously notable middle school. Mostly un-encyclopedic content. --ROGER ^TALK 16:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-notable. Delete and merge with Conejo Valley Unified School District. Emeraude 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your suggestion is incompatible with GFDL. We may delete or merge, but not both.
    Burntsauce 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Merge per Emeraude as few middle schools are really not notable, but not in this case.--JForget 23:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  Burntsauce 17:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per Burntsauce. --Aarktica 22:11, 1 August 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.

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. CitiCat ^♫ 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahnama theory

Shahnama theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This "theory" appears to have been made on Wikipedia. A Google search [17] supports the view that this was created on Wikipedia and was copied elsewhere. So, this should be deleted because it is complete OR... even if it miraculously isn't, then it an utterly non-notable "theory." The Behnam 16:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not even sure what "theory" this article is trying to puth forth. In any case, it's completely unreferenced and transparently OR. /Blaxthos 17:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above -- total OR job, no idea what it's even about. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Maybe the name "Shahnama theory" is made up, and I don't know how notable the story is, but the article lists the reference for the story: Henry Bird, "Chess History and Reminiscences". The biography at Henry Bird has a link to the book, http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4902 where the whole book is online, including the quote which can be seen at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/chshr10.txt (395 KB) in the section "THE THREE INDIAN TRADITIONS". PrimeHunter 02:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Show me an outside reference, and I'll change my vote.
  Chengwes 07:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. A Google search on Shahnama chess shows many mentions of the story. Maybe the article just needs a rename and some editing, but I don't want to do it. I have listed the AfD at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess#... to delete/listed for deletion. PrimeHunter 12:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• General reply - I'm not saying that there was no chess story in Shahnameh. There certainly was, and that is what the quote from that book is about. What I'm saying is that there is no concept attached to the story called "Shahnama theory"... apparently that is some Wikipedian's personal take on the story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Behnam (talk • contribs).
  • Comment. I agree that the name "Shahnama theory" is bad. If the article stays then it should be renamed. PrimeHunter 23:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  Origins of chess (in shortened form, and maybe move the resulting redirect to better title). It may be notable enough for own article if somebody searches and adds good sources. Otherwise, mention in Origins of chess. PrimeHunter 23:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The problem is that there is no such "theory"... making a section about "Shahnama theory" in
    Origins of Chess won't solve the problem. The Behnam 16:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I mean mention the story in
      Origins of Chess without calling it a "theory". PrimeHunter 17:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• merge to
  Origins of Chess. A well known story if not by this name. JoshuaZ 19:12, 1 August 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.

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. The problem is that there currently is no satisfactory target since the district article does not yet exist. In the meantime, redirected to Hayward, California. I encourage anyone interested to start the article on the district and modify the redirect as well as merge any useful content. Pascal.Tesson 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony W. Ochoa Middle School

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

• Delete - unreferenced & no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 17:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP You have to give an article more than 8 hours to be improved and for the stub tag to "work" esp. when it is a school and those that know the most about the subject are on vacation. I see give it a few months and revisit later this year.Postcard Cathy 18:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Roger was so interested in deleting this that it only took him 1/2 hour to prod it. COME ON! Be a little less trigger happy and give an article time to grow. It isn't like this is an article about how many schools give out gold stars and how many schools give out silver stars to their students. This has potential and you have to give it more than 1/2 hour and 8 hours before you prod/afd. 18:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments (1) Prod gives five days to sort out the issues. That's not exactly holding a gun at someone's head and, despite the vacations, this was posted this morning. (2)

I have no axe to grind on this. I googled and nothing significant turned up. FYI, I also "rescued" a couple of articles from CSD this morning by adding sources and material to them. --ROGER ^TALK 18:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Delete per lack of sources talking about it and I dont believe middle schools are inherenty notable. This AFD is here because of notability issues, not content issues. If reliable sources are found to give it significant coverage, then it should stay Corpx 20:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment it still has 5 days. Postcard Cathy, it was not a good idea to remove the prod without adding sources; even if you thought it notable as it stood, you should have used the 5 days for the prod to look for further strengthening. DGG (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the town/region or school district as notability here is not established really and it is a messy article too.--JForget 23:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability. Eusebeus 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks  04:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect once district can be established, per JForget. Chris 05:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hayward Unified School District and geographically in Alameda County. --ROGER ^TALK 06:46, 30 July 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.

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 — Caknuck 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring museums

List of films featuring museums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Didn't want to have to bring this to AfD but the PROD was removed. Fits exact criteria of what

• Delete. So bad it's funny. Per nom, but could this be turned into a cateogry? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't categorize. Very much a non-notable intersection -- why not List of films featuring Hardee's restaurants or List of films featuring Mobil gas stations? It's just far too trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My disdain for "list of" articles is well documented, but this one is so bad it's almost worthy of BJAODN. There is absolutely no need for such a trivial/useless category. /Blaxthos 17:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Information Only equalled by Category: Films about High Class Call Girls and Category:Films about Prostitution --ROGER ^TALK 19:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I did put it into my personal BJAODN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete list of loosely associated topics Corpx 17:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from author/editor that he/she put on talk page: "I could not see which bullet point under WP:NOT#IINFO applies here so I have remove the deletion notice. The article has also been added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. — Jonathan Bowen 15:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)" Maybe someone will answer him on the talk page in case they don't come here to see it? Postcard Cathy 18:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  loosely-associated list. Useight 19:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom --Truest blue 20:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This list is nothing more than a collection of trivial information. Calgary 22:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - that's a very, very loosely related list there. --Haemo 00:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Trivial intersection. Saikokira 01:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This would be boring even if it was more than a list of blue links Mandsford 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kayaker 00:45, 2 August 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.

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. —Kurykh 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kats (video game)

Kats (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Promotion of unreleased game `'Míkka 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - maybe needs a little time. For example:
  Assassins Creed. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete A google search shows bot-all, except references to another game called S.W.A.T. cats (I've already removed Rockin' cats, an SNK NES game, from that search). Eurocom's home page shows no mention (it just stops at their latest game, Pirates OTC: World's End), Sierra shows no mention. At this stage it looks more like a hoax than a game due for release in three months, there's no sources regardless. Suggest adding Kat (animal) to this AFD, as the same editor created that page and it has been quickly redirected to Kats (video game). QuagmireDog 16:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if it becomes notable (after it exists) then we should reconsider, but for now, give it the axe. /Blaxthos 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:CRYSTAL. --Aarktica 22:14, 1 August 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.

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 James Coburn, content already on the James Coburn page. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Coburn filmography

View AfD

)

this filmography of this actor shouldn't be seperated from his biography Benjaminso 15:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to James Coburn. Otto4711 16:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. His filmography is already at James Coburn, so I'm closing this as a merge/redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:16, 28 July 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.

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 no consensus, defaulting to Keep.

Big Poppa E

Big Poppa E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• delete. Vanity page of a nonnotable poet. `'Míkka 15:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, doesn't seem to turn up many sources online, but the fact that he's been featured in some notable places (e.g. HBO) seems to indicate that he might be a bit notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's extremely well known in performance poetry and spoken word circles, has been featured on Def Poetry multiple times, and has gone on multiple national tours of major venues. If he were a musician, he would more-than-make WP:Music requirements. Elliotharmon 16:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some major referencing/verification is done.
  WP:V /Blaxthos 17:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Being able to make a living as a poet seems pretty notable to me. And the article lists plenty of TV appearances etc that I think should be enough for
  WP:BIO. —David Eppstein 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, nationally (even internationally) known poetry slam contender. I've added a few sources to the article, which does have a promotional tone. --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Everyking 00:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per
  WP:BIO criteria for entertainers. --Aarktica 22:15, 1 August 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.

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 Speedy Deleted as non-notable (A7).

Pete Cooper (DJ)

Pete Cooper (DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity page of a nonnotable person. Presenter at a student's radio station. `'Míkka 15:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A student presenting on a college radio station is surely a candidate for CSD A7, an unremarkable person. --Malcolmxl5 15:37, 28 July 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.

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 Keep, although I would assume good faith that this is not a POINT violation. The many delete votes at the least suggest the standard is not crystal clear. Cool Hand Luke 08:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Pelennor Fields

Battle of the Pelennor Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This does not follow Wikipedia

• Delete per nom. And do the same to the rest of the LOTR battle articles. Clarityfiend 15:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  War of the Ring per nom. Anomie 16:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Rewrite or Redirect to

  WP:FICT. Several comments below are claiming that there are reliable secondary sources dealing with this battle; I have no objection to their rewriting the article to have a more concise plot summary and a large section based on critical analysis and reception. Anomie 23:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Strong Delete This is a fictional topic/event with no real world implications. This would be more appropriate in a LOTR wiki somewhere Corpx 16:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
  WP:POINT. I would elaborate but I really cannot be bothered wasting my time. —Xezbeth 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete per Corpx. Also, I really don't understand the reference to
  WP:POINT and associated keep vote (nor do i understand the reason for the language used). /Blaxthos 17:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep, as nomination is in violation of WP:POINT as noted by Xezbeth. Are you going to nominate Category:Fictional battles and everything in it for deletion? Or what about Ministry of Magic, which also is, as Corpx says, a fictional topic with no real world implications? Wikipedia is not paper, and the existence of an article on this topic (although admittedly a shorter article) is not inherently a problem. Moreover, as a significant battle in a significant book, it has been covered by multiple sources: the article surely could exist as a discussion of the various radio and movie treatments, and I expect that there has been other outside discussion of the battle that would be relevant. Unlike Second Hogwarts, this book has been out for fifty years, and it's been referenced far more than Second Hogwarts, which hasn't appeared in much more than the book itself. Nyttend 17:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I meant by real world implications. As far as I can see, there are no independent
  WP:N) Corpx 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Look at Google Scholar: the first page shows two different references in what appears to me to be a scholarly journal maintained by Johns Hopkins University. Also, this JSTOR article in the journal The South Central Bulletin. Page 2 gives a link to a reference in the British Medical Journal, an article Venerable or vulnerable: ageing and old age in JRR Tolkien’s The lord of the rings. I can't get access to those pages on this computer right now, but this quick search shows that there's plenty of independent, scholarly reference. Nyttend 17:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the available google scholar hits and they all dont seem to give "significant" coverage to this topic. I cant look at JSTOR at home, so I cant comment on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)

• Comment I've notified the Middle-earth WikiProject and some notable members, who I'm sure have some things to say. The article could use pruning, especially in the Adaptations area where much is repeated. CNN.com put the depiction of the battle in the New Line film in an article about their "best and worst" battle scenes in films. I believe we have the textual and conceptual history of the battle found in The History of Middle-earth series, published by the author's son.
• Delete per nom. This is an extended plot summary and the arguments that prevailed at the Second Wizarding War discussion seem valid here to me. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep
  WP:WAX (look at the username) and seems to be targeted to the biggest battle of the Legendarium. CNN's coverage of the battle in an article about New Line also makes me lean more towards keep. The "reliable secondary sources" part of the notability guideline is easily met as The History of Middle-earth is a deeply analytical text. Yes, it was written by Chris Tolkein, because he has access to the source material - I doubt the Tolkein estate would release THoMe just to make a quick buck, so in my mind it passes the "independent of the subject". Will ^(talk) 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  How is this article not a violation of

  WP:NOT#PLOT standards? Furthermore, if precedent is to be followed and/or looked to as a guide for future decisions, one need only to seek out the debate on Second Wizarding War which was deleted on grounds of non-notability although it was committed to film (the same situation that Battle of the Pelennor Fields falls under). The secondary source you reference (The History of Middle-earth) is an extension of the same literary franchise, and cannot qualify. The article links to no other articles or sources covering the contents of the article, therefore not verifying that it is in fact notable enough to be devoted to such an extensive plot summary singular page. I seek only to enforce deletion policy in a uniform manner without selective decisions as to what qualifies for its own page on Wikipedia. Taking the very recent decisions to purge Potter articles, I can see no other route than to follow the same course for essentially identical Lord of the Rings and other fictional articles. The Second Battle of Hogwarts is the battle of the entire Potter canon, just as you state Pelennor Fields was for LotR. I simply expect fair enforcement. Auror 00:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The Battle of the Pelennor Fields covers about half of Book 5 (that includes the Ride of the Rohirrim, Denethor's pyre, etc). Again, just because the son of the author wrote History does not mean that it's not independent. Besides, Google Scholar is giving us papers concerning Middle-earth warfare, including this battle. I don't see papers about Harry Potter. Will ^(talk) 00:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:[18] [19][20][21][22] Four books and a journal paper, not made by the author's relatives. One is
  literary executor (who happens to be his son). How can it be original research, when the troop sizes, for example, were painstakingly sourced from the book itself? Uthanc 02:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fans are incensed that others to not reverence their respective topics; this article and those like it are
  fan site; I suggest that those who are so engrossed by this subject just get a blog; others like you will read your site, and you will all follow the Yellow Brick Road because by golly there really is a Wizard in the Emerald City. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I've added some info to the article. Now contains some of my links. Uthanc 07:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Provides more than just a plot summary, is a well sourced article and nomination seems to be in violation of
  WP:POINT Davewild 07:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, and slap nom with a
  WP:POINT nomination. This battle is a critically important and complex event within the book, itself an acknowledged classic now over half a century old, with various facets of it examined in numerous critical analyses and essays. This is not to say it doesn't contain too much plot detail, as do most articles on fictional subjects with a large and enthusiastic fandom, or that the critical response section shouldn't be expanded at the plot's expense, but that's no reason to delete it. Nom can comfort himself that if in 50 years' time his favorite series is still as well-regarded as it is today, he will be perfectly justified in re-adding that opus whose deletion has so aggrieved him. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep per the
  WP:POINT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and rewrite - this and many other articles on fictional topics do need rewriting to avoid an excessively in-universe style and to focus more on the real-world points, but there is most definitely enough material and potential material about this topic for an article. ie. Rewrite, do not delete. It would make an interesting discussion to contrast an article on this battle with the "Second Battle of Hogwarts" article mentioned in the nomination. The LotR battle has had over 50 years to accrue mentions in papers and real-world references. The Hogwarts (Harry Potter) one has had, by my calculation, only about 8 days, so the available material would only be a stub and should be merged to the book article. Carcharoth 10:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt there's even a reliable source available to justify its title. It's not called "Second Battle of Hogwarts" in the book. TCC (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Almost certainly the most widely referenced and analyzed fictional battle in existence. Has been covered extensively in multiple independent works. Indeed, the choice of this particular article for this exercise in extreme
  WP:POINTism only further demonstrates how notable it is... and that the nominator knew it. The argument presented here is analogous to, 'if my article on a human being is not notable then ALL humans are not notable - I expect 'fair' enforcement'. It's nonsensical on its face. AfD does not exist for people to engage in some sort of 'Potter vs Tolkien' vendetta. It's bad faith and counterproductive for all concerned. --CBD 11:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Probably hasn't been studied as much as others such as Beowulf vs. Grendel, or Achilles vs. Hector, but it's still very heavily studied. Nyttend 04:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking of the modern concept of fiction as opposed to ancient myth... and pitched battles rather than one on one encounters. It could certainly be said that the largely fictional description of the fall of Troy in the Iliad has been more studied than Tolkien's work... but that was an actual historical event and even the, clearly to us, fictionalized account of it was, unlike the fiction I referred to, intended to be taken (and indeed, previously WAS taken) as a factual history. It may be safe to assume that there was never a man who was invulnerable to all harm except at his heel... but can anyone really claim that it is impossible that a man named Achilles once fought a man named Hector? Or that their story was not based on some actual event? There was a Troy. It was destroyed. The description of that destruction may not be wholly accurate, but it isn't precisely 'fiction' either. --CBD 10:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Likewise, even if Beowulf is an entirely fictional character rather than a fictionalized historical character, his legend is built around historical people, battles and events. But the comparison isn't apt anyway. Battles are not the same as single combat even in the context of a war. How many fictional wars are there in old myths. Most of the ones I can think of, where humans and not gods were the combatants, are based on historical events. Certainly, no battle from modern fiction as been as thoroughly analyzed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per all the well-formed arguments above. Absurd nomination that screams of
  WP:POINT for an article that is both well-written and well-referenced. CBD puts it perfectly: "[this is] Almost certainly the most widely referenced and analyzed fictional battle in existence". J.R.R. Tolkien's work is on the level of modern mythology. It is a historical, mythological and linguistic world of unsurpassed detail and scholarly acheivement with many sources of secondary analysis beyond even the voluminous work of Christopher Tolkien. This battle is one of its central elements. It certainly deserves and article of its own. IronGargoyle 03:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and rewrite per Carcharoth. I've trimmed the phrasing a little and added a rudimentary "critical response" section, which should really be expanded. Also, "keep and rewrite" goes for all Tolkien battles; those who can should add like sections to the other battles as well. Uthanc 05:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the battle has been analysed, discussed, and parodied. One of the most important plot elements in The Lord of the Rings and one of the best known battles in literature and film. 96T 23:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]