Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esgaroth


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Esgaroth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fictional location. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Highly notable location in The Hobbit and the films and literature based on it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many times an author mentioned his creation. We need evidence that others have done so in a substantial way, and this both lacking and not provided by you outside of an assertion that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the only thing that would persuade me otherwise is if we could find reliable 3rd party sources that used the way Tolkien wrote of Lake Town as a way to understand his political philosophy. If these articles are only going to be plot summaries they can be covered well enough in the Hobbit. All the more so because some of the assertions here, like the Lake Town/Numenor connections go far beyond anything actually said in the Hobbit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Faolin42 (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment people are supposed to explaintheir views, not just baldly assert them. I would say if we were to keep this article, we should move it to Lake Town (the Hobbit) per the common name rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added a new section with interpretations from two reliable sources. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Current sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. People are too quick to dump a couple times where a topic is mentioned and call it a day instead of placing it in a more suitable place like an overall analysis of the author's work/views. TTN (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added more reliable sources mentioning the background and etymology of Esgaroth. The subject has been studied by several authors in connection with analyses of The Hobbit, so it is not trivial. A standalone article is merited also because Lake-town is a major setting in the Hobbit films. De728631 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fictional. Not a shred of analysis. Pure PLOT. Fails GNG and NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonably sourced, with sections pertaining to actual philosophy. Though the middle-earth narrative section needs to be trimmed drastically it is not a reason to delete the article. Devonian Wombat talk 22:00, 5 December 2019


 * 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.