Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lord of the Rings: The Two Blown Away Towers


 * 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. If you are going to claim that the article is notable, provide evidence, rather than just saying it is. Sorry, but no solid reasons have been given as to why this should be kept. Proto :: ►  10:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Blown Away Towers

 * — (View AfD)

Non-notable fan-dub. Google search on "Властелин Колец: Две Сорванные Башни" brings back only 196 unique on 382 returns, search on "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Blown Away Towers" returns only two, both connected to this article. Delete TheRealFennShysa 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Notable non-fan dub. :) Goblin invented "Funny translations" and remains the only popular author of such dubs. And subj is the most popular one. There were lots of immitations. Most notable one is Channel One (Russia)'s official "funny translation" of Night Watch, which was labeled as "Goblin's translation" though it's not concerned with Goblin. Goblin tried to make them remove this lable but nickname "Goblin" is not copyrighted so he failed. By the way this version of Night Watch was shown on 31.12.06. Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.76.35.2 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC).


 * keep only because the deletion prod was never put on artcle soc person never know if it world be contested just brought to afd insteadOo7565 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason to keep. Trebor 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Same reasons as above nomination - no independent coverage so no verifiable information. Trebor 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Same as other nomination, I'm changing to abstain due to my inability to evaluate Russian sources. Trebor 17:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom :: mikm t  19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this translation is one the most popular of Goblin's works among the Russian-speakers. While the film itself it not available for sale internationally (primarily because of copyright issues), it can be bought in Russia both online and retail. There are Russian online magazine articles describing Goblin's works in general and several of them in particular (this might be one of them). These articles can be easily translated (although poorly) into English with free translating engines like Babelfish. Chronolegion 20:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you use a Russian search engine like Yandex, you will find more results about the film than on Google. Chronolegion 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Bum for arguments for keeping another of Goblin's translations. Chronolegion 17:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - No matter what its fans may think, it is definitely a fan-dub, and unauthorized at that. No legitimate sources as far as I can see. Textbook non-notable, and TheRealFennShysa's argument carries more weight with me than unsourced claims of popularity. MikeWazowski 00:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How would you define a legitimate source? Goblin's translations are reviewed in serious online magazines. This wouldn't be done to something unless they felt it was worth reviewing. Chronolegion 03:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chronolegion, Goblin's translations are popular and are sold in significant amount of copies. Max S em 14:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chronolegion. Russian-language Google search gives about 18 000 returns. --Comrade Che 1 13:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 06:57, 12 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.