Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolkien tourism


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; neuro(talk) 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien tourism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

whilst it is a real product, it's only had very limited third party coverage see Google news search. maybe it deserves a sentence or two here The_Lord_of_the_Rings. I should also add that very few articles actually link to this article.Michellecrisp (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment it's not a product, it's what fans do. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to a Theme-based and event tourism, since kind of thing also involves The daVinci Code (like tourists flooding specific churches mentioned in the book). Anne of Green Gables tourism is a large part of the PEI economy. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea - it could also include things like, and the like. Grutness...wha?  05:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC) gah. For some reason i was thinking of this article as a category. Need more coffee... Grutness...wha?  00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to where the nom said, unfortunately there just isn't enough 3rd party coverage, which is a shame. Ryan 4314   (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has verifiable 3rd party coverage. Laurent paris (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep to consider merging outside of AfD I can't tell yet if a proper fully-sourced article can be written on this, but there is some good info of interest that would be suitable for a merger into a/the main article even if the article can't really stand on its own. – sgeureka t•c 16:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article describes a real verifiable phenomenon that is the result of a notable piece of fiction with real world effects on tourism in New Zealand. That is enough to establish notability. You only need enough refs to verify the info. I don't oppose a merge that retains information and doesn't bloat the target article. - Mgm|(talk) 23:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs refs, but this is a well-documented phenomenon.  Graymornings (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - real fandom/tourism niche, probably notable. Can be fixed up easily. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 10 December 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.