Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scouring of the Shire


 * 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   keep. Some good ideas about perhaps taking the article in another direction, but clearly no consensus to delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Scouring of the Shire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Do we really need an article on one chapter of the Lord of the Rings? There are no references apart from a WP:PRIMARY and a WP:FANSITE. I can't see any reason why this article should remain. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  13:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm. On its own, I'm not sure it would merit an article (though I was surprised that I wasn't able to find sourcing up to my standards). However, I think there probably has been enough written on Tolkien's political views re: industrialization and such to write and split out an article on that, citing secondary sources which discuss this chapter and his other writings (this chapter is alluded to in our existing biography under "Views"). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There are numerous sources which demonstrate notability; I have added a selection. Andrew (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Although I'm not a huge fan of Tolkien and there may be dangers of overdoing in terms of coverage of him, I think this is more than one chapter, it is a significant if problematic episode in the story. PatGallacher (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Tolkien being Tolkien there are enough sources to create a 10,000 entry encyclopedia on every aspect of Tolkien and his world. Which is where things are headed. The only thing I find off about this article is it doesn't say much other than "Adaptions" and "Summary". There's nothing really encyclopedic other than Tolkien's denial of allegory, which is true for most of his work. -- Green  C  19:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Weak Delete Frankly I am conflicted on this one. In general I am opposed to creating articles about individual chapters of works of literature. But I might be persuaded to make an exception in this case. The Scouring of the Shire is one of the more important chapters in one of the more important works in the canon of English Literature. It has been discussed and dissected endlessly. My problem is that like GreenC, I am not seeing anything in this article that justifies it's existence. If someone were to undertake an expansion of the article to include some discussion of the various literary interpretations and so on, I think I could be persuaded to swing my vote in the other direction. For now I will keep my eye on this discussion and the article in case anything changes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue here is notability, not whether the article needs improvement. PatGallacher (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct. The article is lame but I think the topic does ring the WP:N bell. I am changing my vote to Keep with the caveat that it needs some major work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * strong delete we do not need articles on individual chapters of a novel. Short section easily merged into The_Return_of_the_King with no length problems. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to The Return of the King. There's no reason to have a separate article on this. We do occasionally have articles on sections of books, e.g. The Grand Inquisitor is about part of The Brothers Karamazov and there's lots of articles on Biblical parables. But the Scouring isn't notable independent of the book (e.g. no notable self-contained adaptations/derivative works, no discussions that don't refer to LotR as a whole) and there are no grounds to split for length. Although it's currently not well-sourced, lots of sources about LotR/RotK exist, so it could easily be sourced. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge/redirect, as immediately above. Neutralitytalk 21:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. GScholar search shows significant critical attention devoted to this section of the novel, in and of itself. while virtually all other chapter titles produce only passing mentions or specification of textual references. GBooks search also turns up results like these, commenting on the particular text in ways that go well beyond mere in-universe analysis. There are also sources that treat the chapter as key in interpreting the novel in light of Tolkien's religious beliefs.. With such an extensive range of sources focusing on this chapter apart from the novel and its broader thematics, a separate article is clearly appropriate, possibly necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew's improvements and per editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. There's now no question about notability or encyclopedia importance. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2014 (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.