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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ainulindalë (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article is nothing but WP:PLOT, doesn't indicate why one section of a book deserves it's own article. Should be deleted, not even worth merging into The Silmarillion GimliDotNet (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it seems reasonably clear from Google Scholar that there is ample evidence of notability of this subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has a very useful account of the Creation of Tolkien's world. If deleted should at least be transferred to Silmarillion's page. It sets the foundation of understanding for The Lord of The Rings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.3.101 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has editing issues, but that's not a reason to delete. Topic is notable: there seem to be plenty of detailed, reliable sources out there .  Tigerboy1966  01:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment there are sources that just deal with the Ainulindalë? They seem to be dealing with The Silmarillion, of which the Ainulindalë is just a chapter. GimliDotNet (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is no requirement for the subject to be the the main topic of the source. If it receives significant coverage in a discussion or analysis of the larger work, that's fine for notability. Tigerboy1966  08:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A few sources about this work (not in-universe)

• Jason Fisher (2011). Tolkien and the Study of His Sources: Critical Essays. McFarland. pp. 47–51. ISBN 0786464828. Discusses this topic and Biblical parallels.
• John William Houghton (2003). "Augustine in the cottage of lost play: the Ainulindalë as asterisk cosmogony". In Jane Chance (ed.). Tolkien the medievalist. Routledge studies in medieval religion and culture. Vol. 3. Psychology Press. pp. 171–182. ISBN 0415289440. Chapter about this topic as a cosmogonic myth.
• Colin Duriez (2003). Tolkien and C.S. Lewis: the gift of friendship. Paulist Press. pp. 103–104. ISBN 1587680262. Influence of this work on C.S Lewis's' Narnia.

Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are external sources (see above) that assert individual notability. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sources have been found and are in the article covering it. Dream Focus 08:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a major division of the Silmarillion (even if only a chapter in length) should certainly be a redirect and not a red link. But given its status as Tolkien's creation myth it has been widely mentioned and a decent article could be written. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - may be rescued, see WP:BEFORE and the sources cited above. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2012 (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.