This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (redirect votes ignored due to listed target failing to survive its own VfD). --Allen3 ^talk 11:27, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia of Arda.

Wikipedia is not a web directory. DS 03:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete because criterion A3 at WP:CSD drini ☎ 03:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the most extensive LOTR website on the Internet. John Barleycorn 04:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Encyclopedia of Arda is extremely cool. But we should still delete the article; google will do a better job of directing websurfers than we will. Nandesuka 04:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in complete agreement with Nandesuka and drini. Why don't people read WP:NOT? True, it is kind of boring, but it saves the potential hatred of Wikipedians with the VfD things. Most VfD pages are created by newcomers, and the rest by vandals and such. -mysekurity 05:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. having it on Lord_of_the_Rings#External_links is good enough. Nateji77 06:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JohnBarelycorn. Kappa 08:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A link in Lord of the Rings can cover it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Encyclopedia of Arda which apparently nobody bothered to check whether we had. Morwen - Talk 10:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has been nominated for deletion, too, note. Uncle G 13:33:27, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
• Redirect as per the astute Morwen. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now (speedily?), delete if Encyclopedia of Arda is deleted. Flowerparty ^talk 14:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT a webdirectory for non-notable sites. It's claim is unverifiable, so is not a grounds for keeping it. -Splash 17:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although you are right that the claim is unverifiable, a quick perusal of the site shows that it is an extremely large database of just about every name, place, event and thing in Tolkien's writings, with an extremly high level of competence. This is not just a fly-by-night website, it's a huge database of its subject matter. John Barleycorn 20:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a mention in the LOTR article is enough. --Etacar11 23:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into main LOTR articleGateman1997 21:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.