Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eönwë


 * 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 redirect to Maia (Middle-earth). Redirecting to Maia (Middle-earth) since no better target seems to be around. Tone 07:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Eönwë

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article currently fails to establish notability. The topic does not seem to be mentioned in any capacity outside of in-universe lore anywhere. TTN (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:NEXIST what matters is not the state of referencing in the article at the moment but whether it is possible to sustain notability at all. Tolkien's legendarium is quite possibly the most over-analysed literary work of the 20th century so it comes as no surprise to see some referencing for even this minor character - see the following: 1 2 3 4. As an alternative, if this referencing is thought insufficient, I'd propose merging to Maia (Middle-earth), but I don't think this is necessary because the above referencing seems sufficient. FOARP (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, it's not mentioned outside of the in-universe context. Simply existing as a mention in a reliable source is not sufficient. TTN (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * These are analytical works, not in-universe works, and therefore these are "outside of an in-universe context". Particularly, one of these analyses the linguistic roots of the name Eönwë whilst another traces the emergence of the character in Tolkien's work. Admittedly a couple of these require an academic log-in to access, but you can get an idea of their content from the Google snippet. FOARP (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If the text of a book is simply summarizing a character's role within the fictional world for context, then that is simply in-universe detail on the character. I'm not sure what you're seeing that I'm not, but all of those sources just show trivial mentions. TTN (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Concentrating specifically on Ref. 1 ("The Evolution of Tolkien's Mythology: A Study of the History of Middle-earth"), this describes Christopher Tolkien's editorial role in highlighting the characters battle skills, and the evolution of the way in which the character is described in different versions of Tolkien's text. This is clearly not an "in universe" reference, but instead literary analysis of how the character was written. The same kind of thing is seen in the other three references. Something similar is also described in "Arda Reconstructed: The Creation of the Published Silmarillion". "Historical Bias in the Making of The Silmarillion" from the Mythlore journal also covers similar ground (see p. 164). TL;DR - pretty much every character in Tolkien's legendarium has been the subject of painstaking literary analysis in reliable sources as to their linguistic origin, literary tropes, and the editorial/drafting process by which they were arrived at, and so nearly all of them are notable. FOARP (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They're commentary on the works/overarching fictional race using the context of trivial mentions of the character to reinforce that. None of these are meaningful commentary on the character. I agree that the ratio of notable to non-notable minutiae for Middle Earth is going to be much higher than most any other franchise, but this is a major stretch. TTN (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That these characters are a relatively small component of Tolkien's legendarium is not proof that they are not notable per se. Tolkien's work emerged over a period of decades and the characters within it underwent large-scale revision, including the subject of this article. Specifically the references describe Tolkien's Eönwë character morphing from being a member of one group to being a member of another, from being a character of importance to being (especially under the later edits of Christopher Tolkien) of less importance. Of course intelligent people can differ on such things, which is why I suggested merging as an alternative, but in my view the balance falls in favour of keeping since the coverage extends beyond trivial mentions. Let's see what others say. FOARP (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're definitely putting too much weight on some of the most trivial notes possible, but I guess we'll agree to disagree. TTN (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Not seeing a anything but mentions in passing. Leave soft redirect if delete, Tolkien trivia is still more searchable than most, even for scholars of literature. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect, although, to be honest not sure what the best target is. This is painful, having read the LoTR trilogy over 20 times, and the Silmarillion almost as many, I love trivia like this. But WP is not a fan magazine. I don't think redirecting to Maia (Middle-earth) is a good option, since I'm not sure that target is itself notable. There are quite a few books about Tolkien and his work, but most are focused in-universe. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:05, 24 October 2019 (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.