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 no consensus. Might be better to restart the AfD when the article is stable. Majorly (hot!) 11:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth canon[edit]

Middle-earth canon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article is nothing more than an essay, full of unsourced opinions. A list of the works of Tolkien, or of works set in Tolkien's world, would be appropriate for Wikipedia, but op-ed pieces of this sort are not. Mr. Darcy talk 15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. After three substantial rewrites/trimmings, this article now has a well-defined subject and most of the essay qualities have been removed. Djcastel 13:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect; I find only eight articles that use ((ME-canonstart)) (list) and, oddly enough, only seven that use ((ME-canonend)). That is quite easily remedied after this article is deleted. In fact, only fifty articles (mainspace, excluding talk pages) link to this one. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not incorrect, as I was referring to what links to the Middle-earth canon page. Tarc 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read your own post, please. You claimed that dozens of pages use those templates; that is wrong, as only SEVEN articles use both of those templates. And only fifty (50) mainspace articles link to the article itself. Are you disputing either of those facts? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The terms 'about fifty' and 'dozens' do not seem contradictory - and most of those 'about fifty' are substitutions of the templates in question. So yes, what Tarc wrote was entirely correct. --CBD 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful as an outline of the various arguments as a sub page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth, it won't and can't prevent canon arguments in a publication series of the size of Tolkien's but may save some typing during one Tttom1 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of other, similar articles is not in and of itself grounds for keeping this article. If anything, your argument favors deletion of all of these "canon" articles as NOR violations. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't looked at Star Trek canon and Buffyverse canonical issues, have you? They are well-written, well-referenced articles, and I fail to see how you can justify calling them NOR violations. What CBD is saying is that it is possible to write NPOV, well-referenced, articles about canon (fiction) referring to one particular topic. I agree this article is not it for Middle-earth, but that is a reason to rewrite the article, not a reason to delete it. AfD often fails to understand the difference between a rewrite and a delete. A delete is for something that we should never have had an article on in the first place. A rewrite is aimed at removing POV and OR and ending up with something useful. Carcharoth 00:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treatment. The tone and style of Middle-earth canon is very different from Star Trek canon, as well as the latter being heavily referenced. If you could provide references for Middle-earth canon, that would be great. Bascially, a opinon/editorial (op-ed) piece on Middle-earth canon is not encyclopedic, while an encyclopedic article on the subject is (obviously) encyclopedic. The tone would have to be dispassionate and neutral, and it would have to be short and to the point, and, crucially, would have to show that reliable sources had written about the topic. Would you like to take up the challenge? Carcharoth 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article as written seems generally, to me, a fairly balanced view of the opinions regarding 'what is canon in M-e'. It certainly lacks refences for those described opinions. Personally, I wouldn't know where to find references on those as in my own experience canon debates were off the record or peripheral to other debates such as Dwarf Lady beards, Elf ears, Balrog wings, or Hobbit tea cosies. But that isn't to say the article doesn't describe the canon debates acurately. It has some primary world primary source references from Letters of JRRT. What kind of secondary and tertiary sources are sufficient and exist? Tttom1 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 In deference to Carcharoth's substantial rewrite of this article, I am relisting to allow further discussion.
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added some refences Tttom1 05:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the article still reads too much like an essay trying to define the concept, but that is probably a result of it being rewritten from the earlier "essay" version. Starting from scratch is often best, but I was attempting to preserve the information contained in that essay while turning it from an essay into an encyclopedia article - turns out that this is invariably a very difficult thing to do. Starting from scratch is sometimes best to avoid this problem, but I prefer blanking and rewriting, to deletion. Deletion should concern itself less with the current state of the article, and more with whether there should be an article at all (in practice, unsalvageble messes are often deleted to allow starting with a clean slate - but I don't think that is justified in this case). Carcharoth 10:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately, this article needs to move away from "defining" the term towards a "historical" article documenting (using reliable secondary sources) the history of Tolkien's writings and the history of their publication and the response of scholars and critics to the entire corpus of work. The concepts of "secondary world", "Tolkien's legendarium", "Middle-earth canon", "Middle-earth cycle", "mythology for England", "the Silmarillion concept versus the published Silmarillion", would then naturally be clearly understood in the context of that article. Carcharoth 10:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -Christopher Tolkien, as Literary Executor and editor, has both the legal authority and the author's explicit permission to publish JRRT works in his name. C.Tolkien has used 4 methods to do this and their factual, in print, existence bears on 'canonicity'. Lost Tales presents JRRT complete stories in their original earliest form; Unfinished Tales presents incomplete stories; The Silmarillion presents an editorially developed conclusion to certain works that were not, in their entirety, completed and had to have editorial additions; and the new Children of Húrin presents a complete tale compiled from writings that alledge a minimum of editorial intrusion using only material written by JRRT. To some extent these publications 'frame' possible aspects of canonicity. As this sort of thing happens to authors and their work, the issue would need to be addressed, at least in an article on Me canon. Tttom1 14:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Actually, there are 5. Most of the History of Middle-earth series presents JRRT's writing for the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings in the chronological stages of their development. Tttom1 15:17, 25 April 2007 (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.
More