Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Middle-earth

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 16:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor places in Middle-earth

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 Tolkein's own works and the editions thereof 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 Posthumous editions of unpublished works do not meet that test, whether or not the editor completes unfinished material.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) 07:37, 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 08:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And see also the notes in Unfinished Tales. - jc37 08:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply So far as I can see, none of those works are cited as references to this article (there is a mention of "History of Galadriel and Celeborn", but on a v quick search I can't find any trace of that publication). 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) 08:34, 26 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) 09:52, 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 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) 10:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See comments and references establishing notability under similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Arda nomination above. --CBD 11:00, 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) 12:07, 26 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 14:07, 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 15:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since CBD points out "Numerous independent sources" on the "Arda" AfD (see above)... I think an article to emulate is Land of Oz. The problem is adding references instead of finding references. Uthanc 16:49, 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 18:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "minor" does not mean "OK to delete". Artw 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per CBD's excellent reasoning. IronGargoyle 21:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Misunderstanding of WP:N. The individual items in an article do not have to meet the standard of notability. That is exactly why we have this type of article on manor fictional topics where the fictional work is important enough to warrant it. Some instances might be borderline, but surely not this one. DGG (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:10, 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 05:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CBD. —Mirlen 13:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CBD jonathon 04:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: very useful information, which Wikipedia keeps more accessible than otherwise! 85.227.226.243 08:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fram and the nominator. See also: WP:USEFUL. Burntsauce 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Lack of reliable seconary sources suggests these fictional locations have no notability outside their primary source. --Gavin Collins 11:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As DGG said, "The individual items in an article do not have to meet the standard of notability. That is exactly why we have this type of article on minor fictional topics where the fictional work is important enough to warrant it.". Carcharoth 11:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gavin is right, that sounds like an excellent excuse to keep any and all fiction cruft. We're not a repository for that sort of information, nor should we be. Burntsauce 15:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about stuff from Tolkien Studies and A Bibliography of Scholarly Studies of J. R. R. Tolkien and His Works? Would that be more acceptable than fiction cruft? Carcharoth 01:48, 31 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 14:51, 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.