Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord of the Rings notable deaths


 * 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 -- JForget 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings notable deaths

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable list of deaths. Pretty fancrufty; cites no sources, and is an orphaned article. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * delete fancrufty listcruft: an arbitrary collection of information, which wikipedia is not. `'Míkka>t 06:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any of these deaths that are genuinely notable will be covered in the plot summaries for the respective books. Nothing is to be gained by gathering them together in their own separate list. Ipoellet (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unsalvageably unencyclopedic entry written as pure original research. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not an article, probably original research. Adding "Sauron" near the top is simply wrong since he was only banished, not killed. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think he belongs at the bottom either. Wasn't he just made impotent by the loss of the One Ring? (Maybe Sauron's responsible for this article. In which case, WP:COI.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fancruft and unreferenced. ― LADY GALAXY 15:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete urgh. Completely unreffed, fancrufty to the max -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete worthless list as it stands; not clear how a valid article could be made of it, though maybe that's possible. Concur regarding Suaron's inappropriate inclusion here. JJL (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a list of blue links. Accordingly it should exist (if at all) as a category.  However, I doubt it is needed at all.  I have enjoyed the books, but there is a limit to how much analysis of them we need.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2008 (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.