Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Owl Words used in Guardians of Ga'Hoole


 * 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. WP:NOT and there is a distinct lack of verifiable sources here.--Isotope23 15:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Owl Words used in Guardians of Ga'Hoole

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

I think this is a pretty bad case of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Pascal.Tesson 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by the way, I'm too lazy to do it but there's a slew of articles about characters of Guardians of Ga'hoole like Siv, Lord Arrin, Kludd, etc... Should all be merged into a character list. (In fact, I'd rather have them all deleted but I don't think that's the majority's opinion.) Pascal.Tesson 00:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge. Philippe Beaudette 01:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge unless article expanded with real-word context/analysis There's a reasonable case that this goes against the WP:NOT section on plot summaries that says an article should provide fictional plot details with real-world context or analysis (as opposed to simply listing them). So as is, I'd favor deletion/merger with the book series' main article.  However, if the article could be expanded with published material explaining some real word implications for owl words, then I'd be willing to reconsider (assuming it avoids original research issues). Dugwiki 22:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up - it is a documentation of a fictional language. Please see Languages of Middle-earth, where we have MULTIPLE articles on the language of that fantasy world.  Granted, the article does need clean-up and non-universe sources. Johntex\talk 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But to reply, note that the Languages of Middle-earth that you linked does appear to include a fair amount of explanation and analysis of how and why Tolkein created the languages. It doesn't just list phrases, but explains why the creation of the languages has some real-world significance and value outside of the fiction itself. By contrast, the owl words article simply lists the words and doesn't go much beyond that. Dugwiki 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - This isn't a language, at best it's Jargon. Also there are vast numbers references for Tolkien's languages, but I couldn't find a single page discussing this specifically and all the google references I found for the series itself were bookstores or blogs. When universities start teaching courses in this, we can bring it back. --Jamoche 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree, the Middle-earth languages have been the subject of much scholarly work. This, clearly, has not. Pascal.Tesson 01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge These vocab terms would be okay in a section of bullet points in the G of G'H article. Shaundakulbara 03:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft FirefoxMan 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge this list isnt that long, i think it should just be merged with the main article. Polygon 01:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think merging is also a bad idea. Do we really want to add a huge overwhelming chunk of original research to the GoGH article? Pascal.Tesson 02:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. We're not a collection of lists. And, by the way, any time you want to put some Tolkien-cruft up for deletion, you've got my strong support. And, although I'm a trekkie/trekker ( your choice ), I'm all for deleting Trek-cruft too. WMMartin 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic list. Jerry lavoie 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.