Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Hornburg

Battle of the Hornburg

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional battle. References are all to primary sources, including fan observsations on a movie. This belongs on a wikia, not here. Fails WP:PLOT (no analysis, just plot summary) and WP:NFICTION/GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fancruft.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:FANCRUFT is not a WP:DELREASON, it merely describes a sort of article that is likely to be deleted if it cannot be improved. Similarly WP:ALLPLOT is not a WP:DELREASON if the article can be improved so as not to be an all-plot summary. WP:NFICTION is an essay - it actual failed to become a guideline because of the flaws in it. So the question is: can this article be improved based on the sourcing available?

I find the answer is "yes it can" given the substantial coverage of it in numerous reliable sources which focus not simply on summarising the events but the differences in the portrayal of it between the books and the films and the special effect techniques deployed to portray it. See particularly the following (keeping in mind that "Battle of Helm's Deep" is an alternative title): 1 2 3 4 5 6. Essentially the portrayal of this fictional battle is a notable cultural phenomenon and this article should be kept for this reason (i.e., it's a WP:GNG pass). FOARP (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per FOARP. Also, specifically the film/CGI creation about Battle of Helm's Deep is a big deal. I have seen the battle included in lists like "top 10 battle videos", and I have seen technical/movie production film about creating it. --Doncram (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:INHERITED, a discussion of how a video about X topic was made does not make said X topic encyclopedic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think you're possibly misunderstanding WP:INHERITED here. WP:INHERITED means that you cannot argue from coverage of a larger phenomenon that the smaller phenomenon of which it is part inherits its notability (e.g., arguing that something is notable because it is part of LOTR). It specifically says that this is the case ("Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects"). It does not mean that coverage which is explicitly of the subject cannot be used to show that the subject is notable just because the subject is part of a larger work. This is clearly the case in every one of the references discussed above - they are explicitly about the fictional battle and the different ways in which it is portrayed. Wiki has long recognised that a specific part of a television program or film (e.g., famous catchphrases, specific sections, theme music etc.) can be notable independently of the larger work of which it is part. FOARP (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I think I am not mistaken. CGI of Battle of Helm's Deep or such might be a notable topic, whereas the fictional battle itself is unlikely to be so. If the current section on the CGI/movie wasn't completely unreferenced I'd be open to some form or a rescue of this article, but as it stands I don't believe it merits anything but a mercy WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: - You're welcome to open a rename discussion to rename the article to CGI of Battle of Helm's Deep on the article's talk page if you believe it will improve the article, but rename discussions are not for AFD. This is not a WP:TNT situation as the article is eminently savable, and the lack of referencing in the article does not matter for assessing deletion per WP:NEXIST. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline and so it is not our practice. At the Hornburg, "blasting fire" was the "devilry of Saruman". He lost. Andrew D. (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Two Towers#Book III: The Treason of Isengard. It's a plausible search phrase, but has no independent significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm more familiar with this as the Battle of Helm's Deep and that's certainly notable. For example... Andrew D. (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Helm’s Deep is heralded as one of the greatest battles ever put into a movie. Its scale is off the charts, its emotion is legitimate, and the dual mechanics of its showmanship and storytelling never clash. Really, the greatness of Helm’s Deep reflects the greatness of the Lord of the Rings trilogy as a whole. The battle’s technical mastery, sweeping spectacle and tonal balance double as the legacy for the series itself.
— 15 Years Later, No One’s Matched ‘LOTR’s Battle at Helm’s Deep
Keep. Significant event in both the works of one of the most significant authors in the English language and in the films based on it. Definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Two Towers#Book III: The Treason of Isengar because there is nothing to merge. Per WP:NOT#PLOT, "Wikipedia treats creative works [...] in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." Here, we just have (not even concise) plot and trivial book-film comparisons (WP:OR, WP:UNDUE). Per above, CGI of Battle of Helm's Deep could make a legitimate WP:SPINOUT one day, but the current article offers no content for such. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Coverage seems trivial. There is little need for paragraphs on paragraphs of repeated content. TTN (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Afdcruft. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]