Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghân-buri-Ghân

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghân-buri-Ghân

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

Another minor Lord of the rings character. Ridernyc (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike most of the articles you've nominated in the last hour or so, this character at least appears and plays somewhat of a significant part in the narrative; while he's not a major character, he's much closer to it than individuals such as Wulf the Dunlending or Frumgar father of Fram. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drúedain. I don't see anything significant in this article that isn't already present in the suggested target, but if there is, it can be smerged. Deor (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN left me a note on my talk page, asking me to revisit this discussion in the light of her work on the article, so I'll just note that I still think redirection is best. The Drúedain are an interesting feature of Tolkien's mythos, and I think Mr. G. can best be treated in that wider context rather than in a stand-alone article that deals only with what one is told in LotR. Deor (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Drúedain. A significant minor character. Also, don't argue with a King of Rohan. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Déor (note the diacritic)—had some problems with the Dunlendings, I believe, but I'm not he. Deor (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Drúedain 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drúedain. I don't see why deletion is necessary when a redirect will do as fine and still allows the name to show up in categories. Uthanc (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's non-notable, unreferenced and not likely to ever be a search term. Ridernyc (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to be a search term because it's Tolkien. Moreso for this character because of the space he gets in a book teeming with minor characters. Uthanc (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Named characters with a role in the plot of major fiction are notable enough for articles. Some of the others above don't really fit into this category, but not him. Let's put it this way: most of the others, I had to check the articles to see just who they were: he i remembered. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have read the notability guidelines, yes? Where does it state that "named characters with a role in the plot of major fiction" are somehow exempt from WP:GNG? Ironholds (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, fails WP:GNG.Change to keep now sources have been provided. Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the only one (out of the current string of proposed Lord of the Rings deletions) that I disagree with. Ghan-buri-Ghan is not a trivial character. He has a lot to say and he propels the action significantly. In movie terms, he has "more than three lines". --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And can you show any coverage per WP:GNG? Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters don't tend to get a lot of newspaper/magazine articles or books written about them. I can't show you mainstream coverage about Aragorn or even Frodo, but they are clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Ghan-buri-Ghan is enough of a presence in our public consciousness to generate more than 6,500 Google hits. Yes, yes, I know - Google hits are not a criterion of notability - but in the case of a fictional character I really don't know what else would be. And Ghan-buri-Ghan is not without his fans. For example, I found a blog review titled "Ghan-buri-Ghan, where are you?" complaining about all the characters that were important in the book but were dropped from the movie. (I can't link to the review because it is on a "blocked site".) --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is very easy to show mainstream Coverage of both Aragorn and Frodo. Ridernyc (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you dig, or use print references. But in a simple Google search you get the same kind of thing for them as you do for a simple Google search for GbG - namely, blogs, fansites, wikis, derivative games, things named after them, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could also use google books, which comes up with a ton of hits for Aragorn - and almost nothing for Ghân-buri-Ghân. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To prove the point [1], [2].

Thanks for that suggestion! "Almost nothing" turned out to be "something". I just added to the article several references about or analyses of this character, Ghan-buri-Ghan. I will add more when I have more time, but I suggest anyone who voted "delete for lack of sources" take another look. I would also argue against "merge" since the referenced information is mostly about GbG as an individual, not about the Druidain in general. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: Today 3/19/10 I posted the following notice on the talk pages of several people who voted above: "Hello! I see that you posted a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghân-buri-Ghân. Since then, the article Ghân-buri-Ghân has been expanded and references added. Just in case you want to take another look." I don't think this violates the ban on soliciting votes. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blog review on a blocked site = probably an unreliable source anyway. The WP:GNG trumps all; we cannot keep an article if it shows absolutely no evidence of notability, which this doesn't. Ironholds (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG per the sources provided by MelanieN (in the article). Specifically, the character is substantially covered in the book Tolkien the medievalist (preview), where the author discusses how Tolkien depicts wild men. There are many mentions of him in other works/books, several are nontrivial (ex1, ex2), it is overall sufficient for meeting GNG, provides enough verifiable content and given its significance in the plot, it makes the character worthy of a standalone article. Cenarium (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a nontrivial (if minor) named character in the novel, he gets mentioned repeatedly in secondary sources, some of which are cited in the article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--multiple independent sources suggest that a separate article is most appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2010 (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.