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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:47Z

Special effects of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy[edit]

First off: a prod was on this, and removed because the creator of the article claimed it was "vandalism". Anyway: this is pure fancruft. Lots of movies have special effects, Lord of the Ring being a popular series doesn't make this any more notable. Put this on a fan wiki, not Wikipedia. RobJ1981 11:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination. The Lord of the Rings was an enormous production and it already has two subpages on the Production Design and Principal Photography to help the main article cope with the mountain of information. This article is fully referenced by the DVD and is not fancruft. WikiNew 11:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bad faith? Wrong. My opinion isn't bad faith. If you want to talk about bad faith: removing a prod by calling it "vandalism" is bad faith. Anything can be referenced: it doesn't mean it's suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 12:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Film articles generally have information about special effects in the production section, and it's standard procedure to break off if you have too much information. Bignole 18:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets notability requirements by policy. The effects of the films were ground-breaking and award winning and were the subject of many reliable publications and articles. I wish we could ban "cruft" from deletion arguments, especially from nominations. It's a lazy derogatory argument that means little more than "I don't like it" and does nothing to indicate non-notability. --Canley 13:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Canley. and ~~per, uh... it's unsigned, but timestamped, so keep~~ because it's clearly notable for inclusion in the film page, and large enough to break into its own. Autocracy 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a long and well-referenced subarticle of the LOTR article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's see, I know I saw more than a few mini-documentaries describing how the special effects in this series of movies were created. And I didn't even pay attention to them, but I know they exist. So I'm satisfied that this is notable, and given that it is three movies produced in the same time frame, I'd say covering their special effects in one article is quite convenient and handy. FrozenPurpleCube 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the other votes, but I'm not too sure about the name of the article, it doesn't seem right somehow...just a comment.--UsaSatsui 15:11, 13 March 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.