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, with a reminder to actually address the raised points on the basis of the indicated sources and editorial commitment.Tikiwont 16:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor places in Arda[edit]

Minor places in Arda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete. Non-notable fictional location, fails WP:FICTION. I have noticed in the last few days that most of the articles in Category:Middle-earth locations contain no references to secondary sources, and many are entirely unreferenced. This article cites only the editions created by Christopher Tolkein, so I had tagged the article with ((nn)) and ((primarysources)). Those tags were removed on the grounds that "Christopher Tolkein's work is a secondary source". I believe that this is wrong: as the article Christopher Tolkien makes clear, he edited collections of his fathers' work, completing some unfinished material, but the valuable work of an editor is not a secondary source. Per WP:OR, "secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". Posthumous editions of unpublished works do not meet that test, whether or not the editor completes unfinished material.
I should stress that I have nothing against Tolkien, and I know that his works have amassed a huge cult following even before the release of the blockbuster films. The original works and the films are clearly very notable, as are some major characters and other details but that doesn't mean that every detail of the works is also notable. (See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Notability_of_articles.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment C. Tolkien isn't just an editor, as the History of Middle-earth books all contain much commentary on the textual history of the writings he's editing and the evolution of his father's fictional world. Uthanc 08:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Those works are not cited as refs for this article. Do they actually contain non-trivial commentary on the significance of the minor places in Arda? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, as do the notes in Unfinished Tales. - jc37 08:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In any case, per WP:NOTE, "multiple sources are generally preferred" and the test is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis added by me). A compendium by the author's son and posthumous editor does not seem to me to be a remotely independent source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this was discussed during the Battle of the Pelennor Fields AfD, whether THoME is counted as "independent", a point that actually needs to be discussed. Will ^(talk) 02:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on this and the rest of BrownHairedGirl's AfDs. They are grossly premature. The correct course of action should have been to tag them ((in-universe)) and allow the editors some time to assemble sources and improve the articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((in-universe)) might be appropriate as an additional tag for such articles, but it doesn't cover the notability problems. As stated in the nomination, I would have been happy to leave time for improvement, but the nn/ps tags were removed. However, it is perfectly proper to make an AfD nomination of an article for which notability has not been established. I have nominated only 4 articles, and if these articles are remotely as notable as commentators are claiming at AfD, then the 7 day span of an AfD should be plenty of time to accumulate the minimal referencing required to establish notablity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Numerous independent sources are available; The Atlas of Middle-earth by Fonstadt, The Complete Guide to Middle-earth by Foster, the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia by Drout, The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion by Hammond and Scull, et cetera. Literally dozens (possibly hundreds when languages other than English are considered) of books have been written about the works of Tolkien... with detailed analysis of the names of these places, their possible real world analogs, demographics, et cetera. Organizing and referencing everything Tolkien related which was put on Wikipedia in the earliest days of the project takes time... but the absence of references establishing notability on each article is not the same things as being 'non-notable'. These topics satisfy WP:FICTION in spades. --CBD 10:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the universe created by Tolkien and a lot of its locations have been the subject of many, many derivative works and even scientific articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now but Delete unless some of the alluded-to independent (of the author, Tolkien) sources are added to the article, and it is shown that the content is attributable to the independent sources. --SmokeyJoe 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Iamunknown and Carcharoth below, I would like the article to be allowed more time for improvement. It may be entirely original research, or derived entirely from non-independent sources. But there is also a good chance that some of the non-internet sources mentioned support the article and that those with access to these sources are hesitant to work on the article while the AfD axe hangs over it. --SmokeyJoe 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no need to recreate the appendices to LotR (and similar works). If there are reliable independent sources making (some of these) locations notable, the article (or an article on these few locations) can be kept. Since these are truly minor locations, I doubt it though. Fram 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree that most of these places don't have much in the way of secondary sources, beyond mentions in Tolkien atlases, guides etc, and Christopher Tolkien's writings, and so perhaps don't meet the letter of WP:FICT. However, WP:FICT is stomped on by hundreds of thousands of 100% in-universe fiction articles, most of which are from far less notable sources, so I'm wondering why start with these? Espresso Addict 15:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BHG. Espresso Addict - we have to start somewhere. Neil ☎ 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since CBD points out "Numerous independent sources"... Third-party books are allowed, look at Land of Oz. the problem is adding references instead of finding references. Uthanc 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the works of Tolkein are extraordinarily notable, they are also full of endless NN place, characters, items. Wikipedia is not the place to creat a massive Tolkein encyclopedia.Ridernyc 18:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per CBD's excellent reasoning. IronGargoyle 21:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. I understand the reason for nomination, but as have been brought up since nomination, Christopher Tolkien was much more than just an editor. I would like to see more sources -- and there are many secondary sources on Tolkien's world, though I don't know how many cover geography. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--proper treatment, repeal WP:FICTION, we aren't a paper venue, and many people check here first or second for information. // FrankB 05:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without WP:FICTION, there's still WP:NOTE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) •

(contribs) 22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:Fiction is a guideline not policy, it's also a guideline that I fell currently violates the policy WP:Plot. Ridernyc 13:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CBD. —Mirlen 13:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the adequate sourcing. DGG (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far the article has precisely two refs, both to the works of Tolkien's son, literary executor, posthumous editor, and completer and prolific documentor of his father's works. I really can't see tat he fits any plausible definition of "independent of the subject". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There are, in addition to the works mentioned by CBDunkerson, many primary, non-independent secondary and independent secondary sources related to Middle-earth. (For one example, see Tolkien Studies: An Annual Scholary Review.) I would prefer that the Middle-earth WikiProject and other editors be given more time to work on implementing these into this article. Thus, it is my opinion that this article be kept, at least for the present time. Cheers, Iamunknown 01:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per CBD. jonathon 04:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If, as per CBD, independent sources for the content of the article exist, then why doesn’t somebody add some specific references to prove this. Otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that the material goes beyond the independent sources and is substantially original research. As it stands, the article cites no independent sources. --SmokeyJoe 07:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And lack of sources is not a reason for deletion. Leave it tagged and eventually someone will get around to adding them. I've had a quick look, and I can't from memory see anything that I haven't read elsewhere. Carcharoth 11:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment so far no has brought up the issue of WP:Plot and the fact that this article it also fails to follow WP:WAF it contains no context outside the books. Ridernyc 13:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could indeed do with rewriting to fit Wikipedia:Writing about fiction, though there are a few fleeting bits of context outside the books: "Tolkien was apparently evoking the island of Avalon in the legend of King Arthur, although the form Avallónë literally means "near Valinor" in Quenya; compare this with Atalantë, the name of Númenor evoking Atlantis." and "The conception was supposingly discarded later, but a reference survives into the published Silmarillion." The former quote deals with allusions and sources, while the second deals with textual history (the development of the story through many versions and drafts). More like this could be added. Would that address your concerns? Carcharoth 14:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - have discussed this above and elsewhere, and, for those reasons, keep but do lots more work to improve the article. Carcharoth 14:49, 30 October 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.