Deletion of Battle of the Pelennor Fields

Comment: per all the well-formed arguments above. Absurd nomination that screams of  for an article that is both well-written and well-referenced. CBD puts it perfectly: "this is Almost certainly the most widely referenced and analyzed fictional battle in existence". J.R.R. Tolkien's work is on the level of modern mythology. It is a historical, mythological and linguistic world of unsurpassed detail and scholarly acheivement with many sources of secondary analysis beyond even the voluminous work of Christopher Tolkien. This battle is one of its central elements. It certainly deserves and article of its own
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: and slap nom with a trout for wasting our time with a clear  nomination. This battle is a critically important and complex event within the book, itself an acknowledged classic now over half a century old, with various facets of it examined in numerous critical analyses and essays. This is not to say it doesn't contain too much plot detail, as do most articles on fictional subjects with a large and enthusiastic fandom, or that the critical response section shouldn't be expanded at the plot's expense, but that's no reason to delete it. Nom can comfort himself that if in 50 years' time his favorite series is still as well-regarded as it is today, he will be perfectly justified in re-adding that opus whose deletion has so aggrieved him
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Provides more than just a plot summary, is a well sourced article and nomination seems to be in violation of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: WP:POINT nomination which stinks of  (look at the username) and seems to be targeted to ''the'' biggest battle of the Legendarium. CNN's coverage of the battle in an article about New Line also makes me lean more towards keep. The "reliable secondary sources" part of the notability guideline is easily met as ''The History of Middle-earth'' is a deeply analytical text. Yes, it was written by Chris Tolkein, because he has access to the source material - I doubt the Tolkein estate would release ''THoMe'' just to make a quick buck, so in my mind it passes the "independent of the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: This is an obvious  violation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per Corpx.  Also, I really don't understand the reference to  and associated keep vote (nor do i understand the reason for the language used
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Fans are incensed that others to not reverence their respective topics; this article and those like it are |fancruft. It is fiction folks, it is only in the mind. It is not real, Spock really did not sacrifice himself for all and the Ring never was worn by anyone no matter how many times you felt it encircling your finger in the middle of the night when the pangs for raw fish became all-consuming. Wikipedia is not a |fan site; I suggest that those who are so engrossed by this subject just get a blog; others like you will read your site, and you will all follow the Yellow Brick Road because by golly there really is a Wizard in the Emerald City
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:CRUFT||WP:WIN)

Comment: Almost certainly the most widely referenced and analyzed fictional battle in existence. Has been covered extensively in multiple independent works. Indeed, the choice of this '''particular''' article for this exercise in extreme ism only further demonstrates how notable it is... and that the nominator knew it. The argument presented here is analogous to, 'if my article on a human being is not notable then ALL humans are not notable - I expect 'fair' enforcement'. It's nonsensical on its face. AfD does not exist for people to engage in some sort of 'Potter vs Tolkien' vendetta. It's bad faith and counterproductive for all concerned
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per the |reliable sources found by Uthanc.  Also note that the nominator is trying to make a 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:POINT)