Deletion of The Fellowship of the Ring

Comment: and of course leave redirects, to The Lord of the Rings. While this is at AfD, it is clearly more of a merge discussion. However, I support it being at AfD (due to how contentious this will be) instead of left to rot on the talk pages. A bold nomination, but I must agree. The subpages are mostly plot, with little actual sourcing. Per , we have the leeway to decide how to best present the series. The three book breakdown is a bit of a publisher's formality, as it was intended to be a single volume, but of course you're not going to sell a single, 3,000 page book. I note that the main page could certainly absorb the others without crowding; the LoTR page has only 43kb of prose, well under the 100k max we prefer. Creating a single subsection for each of the three books would make a complete article that was not overly crowded. Most of the sources (even on the subpages) discuss the series as a whole, rather than as individual books. I also note that the main page receives some 5-10 times the page views as the subpages. I see no need for us to maintain several poor pages, when we could simply maintain one good page and have the same end result: our readers become well informed about LoTR. Combined with issues of context, I agree that having standalone pages is unnecessary. I would urge others reading this not to reflexively vote keep, but instead consider that our duty is create an excellent encyclopedia, and that having a certain number of pages is less useful to our readers than having concise and accessible content. Smooth sailing
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PAGEDECIDE)

Comment: I think the strongest argument for a "keep" is  -- in summary style, the LOTR entry would provide an overview of all three, and then additional pages on the individual books would provide a space for a level of detail that exceeds what would be reasonable in the main article, such as longer plot summaries. However, other than plot summaries, I'm not sure what would ''go'' on these individual book pages. I actually think it would be difficult to find coverage to satisfy notability criteria ''per book''; I don't think I've ever seen literary scholarship discussing ''only'' The Two Towers independently, for example. The fact that the books were published within months of each other is very different from how contemporary series work; unlike with the movies for example, hardly anybody really had a chance to react to them as ''individual'' novels. (Although readers encountering them later almost certainly do apply "trilogy" expectations to them.) So although I came here scoffing at the idea of a delete for such a famous book, I now think a merge to LOTR, deleting the individual book articles, is the most appropriate
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:DETAIL)

Comment: An obviously notable book. AFD is not for cleanup, per ; proposed content rearrangements and merges are best discussed on the talk pages of their respective articles. --&#123;&#123;u&#124
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP)

Comment: I agree with MattMauler that this is treated as a trilogy by everyone except maybe Jack Upland, I guess. The movie adaptation was released as three movies -- see The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. This is obviously a notable work, and per , the current state of the article does not diminish the article subject's notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTN)