Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deutsche Tolkien Gesellschaft


 * 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 to delete. Please take possible merger discussions to the appropriate talk pages. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Deutsche Tolkien Gesellschaft

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fiction fanclub of questionable notability. No independent (at least English language) sources given.-- Dougie WII (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep, notable organization, an independent and perfectly notable English language source is given right under "References". Alternatively merge into an article with the larger scope of Reception of Tolkien in Germany, which is the topic of a full lemma in the encyclopedia cited. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a fan club with 500 members is distinctly non-notable and as written doesn't pass WP:ORG. Wikipedia has a tendency to keep anything with any possible connection to Tolkien but this is pretty ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. - A local organization/fan club with a small scope and size is not notable. Fails at WP:ORG. -- Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  13:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * oh yes? say you? Before or after you have reviewed the Routledge published source provided? Which says it is of great notability to the reception of JRRT in German-speaking Europe? The DTG is a publisher with an impact far beyond its 500 members. You wouldn't delete the article on a publishing house based on the argument that it has only 500 employees. I will not mention Kontu Internet Community in the spirit of WP:OTHERCRAP, but even that can be fruitfully merged into Reception of Tolkien rather than deleted. Once again, I am perplexed by the widespread lack of understanding of the purpose of AfD. dab (𒁳) 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes! Once again, I am perplexed by the widespread lack of understanding of the purpose of AfD.. Me too, when I saw such replies. -- Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  13:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am glad we agree, then. --dab (𒁳) 15:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are at least three other Tolkien organizations with articles of their own. Ideally, it would be better if all of the fan club articles were consolidated into Tolkien fandom, but the very nature of Wikipedia is to "wikify" non-links with brackets, and if they show up as red.links, to turn them into bluelinks.  In this case, it looks notable enough to stay blue.  Five hundred members is actually pretty good for a specialty group, particularly if it publishes the research of others.  Mandsford (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * as a rule, not all redlinks that keep cropping up warrant a dedicated article, but all of them should be redirected to some pertinent target article or section. meta:mergism. I keep seeing AfDs on titles that should just silently be redirected to an article with a larger scope. --dab (𒁳) 15:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Reception of Tolkien. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a branch of a fanclub... if not a delete, then merge or redirect into the larger Tolkien. Jmlk  1  7  19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least five articles in reliable sources; e.g. discussion of the club and a recent conference (in German, admittedly, but notability is worldwide) including this one from the Mitteldeutsche Zeitung; a couple others as well; the primary organisers of Ring*Con, the main convention of its sort. 6000 Ghits. Seems a straightforward keep by our standards of notability, which require multiple independent RSes. Relata refero (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant, conditional keep. "Importance" and "notability" are two different concepts in Wikipedia. I am certainly not convinced of the importance of Deutsche Tolkien Gesellschaft, but if what Relata refero says is true then the topic probably is notable. But, the secondary sources mentioned should be scrutinized for reliability and independence, and MUST be incorporated into the article. WP:RS gives some criteria for reliability, and WP:ORG identifies some pitfalls when considering independence. Ipoellet (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Both the sources I've linked to above are of unimpeachable reliability - one a major paper, and the other an arts review from a major publisher - and are obviously independent of the DTG. Relata refero (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2008 (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.