Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle-earth armies and hosts


 * 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 18:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Middle-earth armies and hosts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another prime example of Tolkiencruft. There's one article/source titled "Orc Hosts, Armies and Legions, A Demographic Study", but everything else appears to be in-universe plot details and a whole lot of WP:OR. I doubt that Tolkien ever published such firm numbers or tables of organization. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Extremely WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:OR list that fails WP:LISTN. Belongs in Wikia, full stop.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree that this is an extreme example of WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:OR. Tolkien never published anything like this. This is really fan fiction.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, fan fiction in theory can become notable. However in this case, there is little to no evidence the fan fiction exists outside of the article. Basically the tables of this article seem to be a unique work of fan fiction unto themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tricky. I'd be up for being convinced tht this was a topic worthy of an article, but this current iteration has some pretty serious OR issues. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete After reading this article, I was struck by the sheer amount of original research and fancruft it contains. The best remedy is deletion, as there is nothing useful here. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 14:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I am still in shock that Tolkiencruft got so out of controll in 2004, and also that so much of it has survived so long. There needs to be major pairing back of this content. Some earlier comments on AfD discussions suggest a belief we have gotten fictional cruft under control. At least in the Tolkien sense, we still have so much it makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The amount of Original Research here is pretty astounding. As there is pretty much no sourced information here at all worth keeping, it should be deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment These horrid, original research tables date back to the original creation of this article in 2007. I am less than convinced there is any evidence that Tolkien ever worked out the thought process of what the commanders of various army sizes were called, what the sizes of various armies were and related issues. It is the absurdity of articles like this that keeps us from focusing full time on removing the articles on non-notable figures, more like non-fiugures whose naes are dropped once, or in the cases of the like of Eldarion not even named outside the apendix, and I am not sure even mentioned in the LotR, although appearing in a dream in the RotK movie.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - simply more fancruft. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tolkiencruft indeed. Hopefully it is preserved on some fan wikia or blog or such. But it shouldn't be here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above. it is OR. Alex-h (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Dartslilly (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2019 (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.