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.
There are insufficient reliable third party sources with substantial coverage to create a notable article that would pass
WP:GNG and
WP:NOTPLOT. Granted, this is one of the bigger battles in the novels and frequently appears in adaptations, but no less than any other popular element from these novels, and goes without saying when you talk about adaptations of
Romance of the Three Kingdoms itself. The events are already proportionately described in other articles about the fiction itself, and the only sources here are really
original research explaining that no one could find historicity for this fictional battle.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I saw that too. I think this runs back into any adaptation (novel, game, film, comic, live theatre) of a fictional work. Yes, a new adaptation means that every aspect of a fiction's characters, locations, and events now appear in the original AND the adaptation. I don't think that more primary material confers any additional notability to any of the fiction's disparate elements, nor does it give you the kind of sources you'd need to create an encyclopedic article. But I support having articles about the adaptations (games, theatre productions) themselves, and summarizing the fictional details that appear in those adaptations. I also support a check for references in other languages, which could result in an
WP:ATD. (But doesn't as of yet).
Shooterwalker (
talk) 18:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/
talk¦
contribs\ 17:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep, a major fictional battle in world literature, the novel itself is one of the Four Classics of Chinese literature (thus nothing to sneeze at). Surprised to find this nominated, and although it may need more cites it is a notable "thing" within the Four Classics.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 6 August 2020 (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.