Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aslan's How (2nd nomination)

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. If Reyk's final comment turns out accurate, a possible merge can be discussed on the talk page. Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aslan's How

A place in a fictional universe with no indication of notability. No 3rd party references have been added in a year. Pcap ping 19:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article has no sources, contains a lot of what appears to be original research and does not indicate any real world notability. Reyk _YO! 19:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is just WP:NOEFFORT. There are numerous sources which discuss this topic so we keep the article for further development in accordance with our editing policy. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name a 3rd party reference (of the literary criticism variety) that discusses the importance of this hill as plot device, as opposed to just mentioning it in passing, like all the other from List_of_places_in_The_Chronicles_of_Narnia? That is the standard for inclusion per WP:GNG (significant coverage), unless you think some other standard applies... Regarding effort, the relevant policy here is WP:BURDEN. Vague claims of notability have been made at the previous AfD (which isn't even linked on the article's talk page). None have been substantiated so far. Pcap ping 21:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are ten such sources:

C.S. Lewis: A Complete Guide to His Life & Works
The Christian World of C. S. Lewis
The Dictionary of Imaginary Places
The Keys to the Chronicles: Unlocking the Symbols of C.S. Lewis's Narnia
C. S. Lewis in Context
The way into Narnia: a reader's guide
Tending the Heart of Virtue: How Classic Stories Awaken a Child's Moral Imagination
Finding God in the Land of Narnia
Imagination and the Spirit: Essays in Literature and the Christian Faith
The Ring of Words: Tolkien and the Oxford English Dictionary

Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You are obviously bullshitting me. I'm not going to go through all those books, so I've randomly picked The Christian World of C. S. Lewis [1]. This hill is mentioned only twice in the book, on page 126. There's no discussion whatsoever about the importance of this hill. From this book we find out that out this is a "much tunneled hill", and that "attempting to go up to Aslan's How by an untraveled road, they [the children] got lost in the mountains." And this coverage makes it worthy of article? Mountains out of molehills, quite literally... Pcap ping 09:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your search seems too perfunctory. Note that other search terms such as stone table are needed to find all references to this place which is Calvary in Lewis's Christian allegory and so of some significance. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although ^{[citation needed]} and ^{[original research?]} because I cannot find a source explicitly mentioning it, the allegory is obvious to me. But then most significant places in the Bible have some allegorical equivalent in Narnia. For instance, the stone table is considered a key symbol in Journey Into Narnia [2], and it is an obviously allegory as well, but the How is barely mentioned. Wikipedia has an article about the How, but no article about the stone table. I'm not convinced that a separate article about the table is justified either, but an article about Biblical allegories in Narnia should definitely mention the table. This the problem with many Wikipedia articles about cherry-picked fictional elements: they are written off the top of someone's head, contain just plot summary, and pay little attention to literary criticism sources about the topic, even when those sources abound. Pcap ping 13:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if the place is not notable for an article of its own, it's clearly notable in the context of Narnia, so merging should be considered before deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already included in List_of_places_in_The_Chronicles_of_Narnia. Pcap ping 09:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considerable possibility of expansion, because the present article doesn't start to discuss the film & video versions. As Col.W points out, any criticism of CSL discusses the religious aspects, and a number of books have been devoted to the religious aspects in particular--not just because they're very impt. in his work, but because of the controversy about the suitability of his books from some religiously conservative groups. And of course there is no Deadline in improving or referencing an article.DGG (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm siding with both Colonel Warden and DGG on this. Plenty of sources are being cited here and I am very concerned at the accusation of bad faith being put forward towards Warden by Pcap, who I strongly recommend reviews WP:FAITH and WP:EQ. 23skidoo (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. Pcap could possibly have chosen better words, but is completely correct in saying that level of coverage isn't anywhere near enough to substantiate a full article. Reyk _YO! 02:35, 29 November 2008 (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.