Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early American editions of The Hobbit


 * 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 merge to English-language editions of The Hobbit. For the most part those advocating keep (as opposed to merge) do not give a policy or guideline basis for that position and so gets little weight. However, there is a clear consensus that there is a valid alternative to deletion which is to merge to a different article. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Early American editions of The Hobbit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A long a rambling work that is full of WP:OR, has no references to back up it’s existence, there are no sources for the majority of the article and the ones that are there do not discuss the topic of the article. Lava Lamps (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 *  Keep/Merge Redirect to English-language editions of The Hobbit Nothing you have written is a valid reason for deletion: long articles can be edited, references can be added. So, the question is not what the article is like NOW, but whether the subject is notable. That can not be determined reliably from an article, unless the article is well-cited. When an article is badly-cited, as here, the only way to tell if it is notable is to look elsewhere. The complication here is that much of it was written by Strebe, an expert, so the rest of us will find his knowledge hard (qua, impossible) to match. However, there is little doubt that the subject is of interest; early editions are extremely valuable, so specialists have studied them in detail. I'll see about some sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've investigated the sources, and the position is extremely odd. There is one other source, Frisby 2009, which I have added, and the printing history. The main source, however, that people point to is a paper by Strebe ... and when you click on it, that's ... this article. So it's effectively pure WP:OR, sourced only to its author. Unfortunately, he has not published it anywhere else, so it's unciteable. I suggest we redirect to the existing list of English-language editions. It may be that some details from Frisby will be usable there in due course. Until then there's little that can safely be merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They are valid reasons for raising afd. Long, old articles with no references are clearly indicative of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, regardless of the knowledge of the article contributors. Lava Lamps (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That connection is your opinion, not policy. Some old articles are long and excellent. It's nothing to do with notability, which is the relevant criterion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d be interested in reading the policy that says articles with no claims to notability and made up purely of contributor synthesis rather than reliable secondary sources are above AFD discussion. Lava Lamps (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I said there is no policy connection between an article's being (A) old and (B) long and therefore (C) being made up. I also said I'd look for sources, and that notability depends on the existence of sources, not what is in the article. That remains true. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Strebe is still an active contributor. Has anyone asked them to update the article with more references? — Toughpigs (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge There's an obvious alternative to deletion – merger to English-language editions of The Hobbit – per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep With the except of the lack of quoted sources, this is an informative, well-written article. There are sources to back up the information given in the article, e.g. the Frisby paper, the Hammond bibliography, Strebe's page and the printing history page at tolkienbooks.net. It just needs some work to identify where the information have come from. Deagol2 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge A very detailed, erudite article that offers valuable information on the subject of a classic book. However, I don't think it warrants an stand-alone article due to overlap with an existing, broader article. It would have better context, after some trimming and editing, as part of English-language editions of The Hobbit. Alan Islas (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge It needs better inline citations but that's not a reason to delete.Iamnotabunny (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge the content supported by inline citations to English-language editions of The Hobbit. Too much overlap, but there's some valuable content in this article that should be kept. Hog Farm (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. It's not simply a matter of missing inline citations; rather, it seems that the bulk of the article is copy-pasted from . There is no evidence that this site is a reliable source. In fact, from the url, it appears to a be personal page belonging to the Wikipedia editor who wrote the article in question. The other sources only back up a few basic facts. In particular, the Hammond & Anderson biography is only used for the first date of publication and a description of an illustration. The Marks source only describes the history of a book-binding company. The A&U and tolkeinbooks cites provide print run sizes only. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep An article being in less than stellar shape is not reason for deletion. There is no doubt in my mind that this article can be greatly improved an is passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 13:15, 17 May 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.