Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boldog (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The concern of no independent sources to support notability claims has been addressed, it seems. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Boldog
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no assertion of notability of this minor Tolkien character; the only sources in the article are the books themselves, and I cannot find any evidence in reliable sources that Boldog is notable in real life. No attempt has been made to write this from a real-world perspective, and this just serves as a narration of the character's appearances in books. I think there are many other similar articles that fail the notability guidelines in the same way, but it is best to just try one out for now. BigDom (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has multiple reliable sources--books published by Christopher Tolkein. Plus, I've found one more at Google books here. The fact is, middle earth is so popular that books of analysis are published containing virtually every character.  The fact that the books are authored by the son of the creator and in his name doesn't impugn their reliability, in my mind, since they are only published because of the notability of the originals. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have the books myself, but the little extracts in the references do not appear to constitute significant coverage. This isn't the worst example of Tolkien fancruft, not by a long way, but it's up there. BigDom (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article contains numerous assertions of notability. Our editing policy is to keep such well written and well sourced material. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Correction: That policy says not to remove material simply because it is poorly written and/or poorly sourced. The beginning of the section you cited, however, makes clear that we should "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." The "problem" is notable. Without independent reliable sources, the subject is not notable. If you have such sources, that will fix the problem. So far, no one has identified such sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge. While it is nicely written (if you ignore it's mostly in-universe POV) and well sourced, the fact remains that it makes no claims as to what Boldog's claim to notability is. So he's fictional captain/commander/general of a fictional group of fictional monster. Fair enough. But why does that make him important? Is he the lead antagonist or protagonist in any book? For sure, though, I'd argue for the replacement of the military engagement infobox with a character infobox (unless the article is supposed to be about the battle). I'd support merging this into something like List of Middle-earth characters or List of Middle-earth Orcs where he already has a nice, appropriate-length blurb. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 15:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy I was thinking of was WP:GNG and to some extend WP:CRUFT -- while the article quite handily provides an argument for ficitonal, in-universe notability, it does not in any way manage to make a case for real-world notability. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 16:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, the last paragraph of the article with its sources establish notability (in the GNG sense). The present coverage is significant enough, with multiple sources, and indeed we see that it allows to create a decent article without OR. In addition, the last paragraph shows that reliable sources consider that the character was significant in Tolkien's legendarium, the quintessential work of fantasy, so an article is warranted. Cenarium (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The GNG says that notability is only established by independent sources. Can you explain how the sources provided in the article are independent? BigDom (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that this is already part of an undoubtedly notable fictional universe (so removing any promotional concerns), I consider that an analysis book by Tolkien'son constitutes a source that is sufficiently intellectually independent to provide for notability of the character. Cenarium (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is that every element of the universe mentioned in that source is notable. Every fictional location, every character, every fictional creature. That seems unreasonable. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not everyone. This one specifically has enough reliable sources sufficiently independent to justify an article. Most fictional elements of a notable work of fiction would still fail to have enough reliable sources independent enough to justify an article. I consider that Christopher Tolkien's commentaries as a source are sufficiently intellectually independent for the purpose of the analysis of his father's work. Setting higher standards would be unreasonable, it's impossible to find a reliable author on a subject that doesn't have a personal interest in it (how could one become knowledgeable on a subject that doesn't interest oneself ?), and there's no talking about financial interest since we know the fictional work in itself is already notable, and this would apply equally to authors publishing non-free books as they also have a financial interest in sustaining interest for the subject they're publishing about (so that people buy their books). You need to find a balance, and in this case Christopher Tolkien's commentaries constitute a source sufficiently independent.
 * That being said, reliable sources by other authors, clearly independent, covering Boldog in a non-trivial manner exist:
 * In the commentaries part of The History of The Hobbit, Tolkien expert John D. Rateliff mentions Boldog several times, and details over three pages the fighting between Boldog and Thingol. He says of Boldog that "his importance may be guessed not just from the fact that he is one of only two orcs (the other being Bolg) named in the Legendarium before the Lord of the Rings. Even more significantly, ...". (Note: you can find this on google books)
 * In The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide by Tolkien experts Christina Scull and Wayne Hammond, Boldog and his fighting with Thingol is also discussed.
 * As indicated by the fact that each of those books and all of their authors have their own article and as testified by a cursory research, those sources are of the highest reliability in the domain, and this time incontestably independent. This clearly shows that several reliable independent sources consider Boldog notable in Tolkien's work of fiction, providing detailed coverage of the character, therefore fulfilling the wikipedia notability requirements and warranting keeping the article. Cenarium (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Yes, it asserts notability. Great, no speedy for not asserting notability. It's well-written. Great, we won't have to re-write it. It has multiple sources (the author and his son). However, it has exactly ZERO independent reliable sources. Without such sources, no topic is notable. Additionally, there is no evidence of notability outside of the books themselves. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Independent reliable sources discussing Boldog in detail and attesting of his notability have been provided. Cenarium (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Smerge to List of Middle-earth Orcs, or delete if it's judged that there's nothing worth merging. No indication of real-world notability. None of the sources are independent (Christopher Tolkien's editorial comments in the HoME books are not independent), and I can find no evidence of substantive treatment in independent sources Christopher Tolkien's editorial commentary in the HoME books may be independent, but I don't think that his detailing of variants in his father's different versions of the Lay of Leithan and associated material constitutes "significant coverage" of this character as called for in the GNG; and I can find no such significant treatment elsewhere (in a Google Books search for Boldog Tolkien, for example). Deor (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After further reflection, I've struck and replaced part of my comment above. No change in the !vote, though. Deor (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have provided independent reliable sources discussing Boldog in detail, in the History of the Hobbit the fighting between Boldog and Thingol is discussed over three pages and the quote above attests of the importance of this character. Cenarium (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No third-party sources are cited in the article or in this discussion. Per WP:V, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Christopher Tolkien, as editor of his father's books and unpublished writings, is not a third party for the purposes of our policies, as he has too much of a personal interest in the whole legendarium.  Sandstein   07:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have provided two other sources discussing Boldog in substance, both clearly reliable and independent. Cenarium (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2011 (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.