Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Tolkien Miscellany


 * 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 delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A Tolkien Miscellany

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. You can argue with me that since Tolkien is a very important author, that it would meet NBOOK #5, but my response to that is that this is just a collection of works by Tolkien, not a volume written by him with the intent of publishing together. I can find no reviews for this compendenium, or any other coverage that would indicate a GNG or NBOOK pass. Hog Farm (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find any sources either. We have a brief mention in Tolkien Studies but nothing significant. Other results on Google Scholar discuss the works that comprise A Tolkien Miscellany, but none seem to discuss the collection itself. As a non-notable collection of previously-published works, we can mention the Miscellany, e.g. in the articles on the notable stories it contains. But I see no possibility for an article without significant coverage in sources. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete how this article has existed for 14 years with 0 sources would be a mystery to me if I did not understand how the defence "it is Tolkien, it is for sure notable" had worn down many a protector of Wikipedia for junk articles over the years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no evidence that this book was ever reviewed by a reliable reviewer. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 12:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I couldn't find a single non-blog-like review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the often-cited WP:OSE points out, "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items". Maintaining comprehensive, complete, well-defined sets of articles "serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference." Ultimately, an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. It is also clear that there are more than enough sources available to write a worthwhile article about the contents of the book, even if there is little specific to this particular edition. The book has been in print for nearly 20 years, and been issued by at least two different publishers. It is a very plausible search term, and if Wikipedia is being operated to provide information to its readers, rather than as an arcane game for its editors, this content should remain available. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the category of "Works by J. R. R. Tolkien" is a category of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable. There are many dozens of works in Tolkien's bibliography, and most of them don't have potential for articles. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.