Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Pelennor Fields

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

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

This does not follow Wikipedia WP:NOTE standards and is an extraordinarily too-detailed article on a fictional event which amounts to a detailed plot summary. This should not be merged, as it is already discussed on the main page of the War of the Ring, and its present summary on the War of the Ring page is suitable enough. Furthermore, this nomination for deletion is to bring universal enforcement in-line with the recent decision to delete the Second Battle of Hogwarts article for reasons of excessive plot summary, notability violations, and fan cruft. (Proponents' arguments in favor of deletion found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second battle of Hogwarts) These same arguments are applicable to Battle of the Pelennor Fields. The article for the Second Wizarding War was likewise deleted, and with it all traces of the First Battle of Hogwarts (otherwise known as the Battle of the Astronomy Tower) and is treated with a few sentences in the \Half Blood Prince page. Yet, this has been committed to film, has been the subject of countless articles and interviews and it was axed for the same reasons I now propose deleting Battle of the Pelennor Fields. The aforementioned articles were far less detailed than Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Evidently Wikipedia is not a fansite, be it Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, and this article violates this tenet. Auror 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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 War of the Ring. Even though the nomination was probably pointy, as it stands the article is just a series of plot summary and doesn't pass 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]
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:POINT nomination which stinks of 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:OR and 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:[1] [2][3][4][5] Four books and a journal paper, not made by the author's relatives. One is The Atlas of Middle-earth. How does one define "literary franchise"? The History series contains neither conventional prequels or sequels; it's rather more like a text corpus of the author's writings with commentary by his 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 fancruft. It is fiction folks, it is only in the mind. It is not real, Spock really did not sacrifice himself for all and the Ring never was worn by anyone no matter how many times you felt it encircling your finger in the middle of the night when the pangs for raw fish became all-consuming. Wikipedia is not a 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 trout for wasting our time with a clear 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 reliable sources found by Uthanc. Also note that the nominator is trying to make a 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]
  • 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]
And yet the article links to no other articles substantiating notability other than one CNN article. The article, and something that has not yet been contested, is one giant extended plot summary written in such an esoteric manner that any layman reader wanting to know more about the battle (perhaps pushed by seeing the constant references to the battle all around him?) would have nary an idea what is going on. Clearly, the article's explanation in the War of the Ring entry would remedy the prodigious extended summary flaw of this article. Auror 00:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned two books. I only own the Atlas, so the other book needs more elaboration. Here's another: [6] Will add it later, or perhaps someone else will (at school now, heh). The "plottiness" of the article is acknowledged and can be remedied per Csernica and Carcharoth. Uthanc 03:12, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_the_Pelennor_Fields&oldid=1137601295"