Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caranthir


 * 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. Adequate policy-based rationals for deletion have nor been refuted by any of the "keep" arguments. Clear consensus to delete. No prejudice against redirecting or merging. Will userfy upon request. S warm  ♠  00:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Caranthir

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V verifies its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. This character only has in-universe notability as no sources support real-world notability independent from the works of fiction in which it appears. AadaamS (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * While it's true that the article is currently lacking in independent reliable sources, no significant Tolkien character is going to be ignored in the many words that have been written about his fictional world, and indeed, clicking on the links above, one does find book and journal citations etc. Whether it is judged to be enough for notability is a different matter, but to say that there are no reliable sources is not quite correct. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also linked to this Afd from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth. And I would ask any editors coming to this Afd from that project to please respect WP:Notability, if they are unfamiliar with deletion discussions. The nominator is quite right that in-universe fictional importance is not enough: we need external sources to demonstrate independent notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have structured the article and added a number of reliable secondary sources. But if you still think the content is not suited for a standalone article, it should be merged to List of Middle-earth Elves. De728631 (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect - Nothing currently within the article shows that the character is independently notable. Brief mention on the above list seems to be all the topic requires. There are certainly plenty of notable Tolkien topics, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. TTN (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. GScholar hits show non-trivial attention to this character, as do GBook hits and popular commentary. There may be Tolkien cruft in need of pruning, but this cookie-cutter nomination with evidence of compliance with WP:BEFORE falls far, far short of making a credible case here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough coverage. -- RM 13:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See related reasons here. WP:WAF, a content guideline, is not a valid reason for deletion. If it still isn't improved in ten or fifteen years, we can redirect. -- RM 11:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Contains only in-universe content, contrary to WP:WAF. If there is nothing to say about a fictional character except summarizing the works they appear in, they are better covered in fan wikis, but an encyclopedia must approach topics from a real-world perspective.   Sandstein   16:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Middle-earth Elves. De728631's restructuring and referencing of secondary reliable sources shows verifiability of basic facts concerning this fictional character. In my opinion there is not enough depth to pass notability thresholds, but there is enough to warrant merging to a list of middle earth elves. --Mark viking (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  19:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per RM and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per RM. --Fixuture (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. Going about this the wrong way. Needs to be justified from the independent sources and not vice versa. Merge it to the list of elves and it can always spin-out summary style if warranted by the sources, and there isn't enough material to warrant that split as of now. czar  23:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong merge, per Czar's comment above. Additionally, per WP:NOTINHERITED, Caranthir needs coverage independent of J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  22:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A few problems with this:
 * You've cited an essay, not a policy or guideline. Can be useful, but by itself, not so much.
 * The essay you cite explicitly exempts books from the rule. This makes complete sense: If the book is notable, then the contents of said book are notable, to varying degrees. Not every tree in the book need be notable, but the threshold for notability is much lower than an independent subject. This is not like a famous person buying a restaurant (WP:INHERITORG).
 * AfD is not the place to debate content guidelines. Whether this be summary style, or something else, is beside the point and has no bearing on notability. Sort it out on the talk page of the article among those who are interested in such things. Content guidelines should determine the extent and location of information on a subject. Maybe the decision is ultimately to merge content, but that is not appropriate to decide here.
 * -- RM 22:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge - per Mark Viking. Clearly a minor character in the history, and the extent of information available could be and should be summed up in one paragraph in the list of elves. MSJapan (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2016 (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.