Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gothmog (Third Age)


 * 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, defaulting to keep. There isn't a clear consensus here, with valid arguments on both sides, though those in favour of keeping are in a slight majority. Michig (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Gothmog (Third Age)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Extremely minor character, is mentioned in one line of The Lord of the Rings. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  21:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep; while the character is a minor character in the novel, the role is significantly expanded in the movie adaptation, and I think there's enough additional information here to pass the notability threshold. I have some concerns about referencing, but that isn't for AFD to deal with.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Significantly expanded? Who are you trying to kid? If by significantly expanded you mean he gets an extra scene in the extended edition? GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  06:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to kid anyone. I would consider the transition from a single line reference in the book to several seconds (if not more - I haven't seen the movie in a while) of screen time, including lines, plus a specific design guideline from the director on the look of the character, to be "significant", regardless of the scene in the extended edition.  Compare "Proudfoot", also a single-line entry from the novel, at the beginning of the book, who did not get any more screen treatment than originally envisioned by Tolkien, as clearly not notable.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By that logic any character from any book who's made an appearance on-screen is notable enough to have a stand-alone article. The film character is undeserving of an article because he doesn't have any coverage in 3rd party sources. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Vulcan's Forge. There is more here than just the information from RotK. Oh, and it's referenced (though more references would be nice). - jc37 07:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's only got primary references, one for the book and two for the film. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  15:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Complete lack of notability. Primary references and the subject is not covered by 3rd party sources in any depth. Fancruft. Davémon (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film series. This list has an entry about the film character that also mentions Tolkien's Gothmog from the novel. All that needs to be said about the 3rd Age Gothmog is currently written in the list. De728631 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources exist sufficient to keep this as a separate article per the GNG. The above redirect is problematic precisely because Gothmog is not an original character per se, although admittedly one which has been morphed substantially from the book. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per extensive commentary which exists on virtually all aspects of tolkien's works. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the audio commentary for the the Lord of the Rings movies does discuss Makoare's portrayal of Gothmog, I don't think that alone is significant, because its not really independent of the subject. However, not only are there a few third-party sources that discuss the article's subject, but there is an Australian beetle, helferella gothmogoides, named after it: "The species name is derived from Gothmog, a commander within the evil host of Mordor, and oides,latin suffix signifying “resembling”."  There is also a tree named after the article's subject, which is the "second most massive stringybark" (although to be fair this source doesn't say which Gothmog is it named after, since there are two different Gothmogs in Tolkien's legendarium).   I think these factors demonstrate the notability of the subject, and that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.- SudoGhost 13:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done for digging out those sources, the beetle is very interesting. I do feel they are a bit shallow, and do not address WP:N"Significant coverage": that sources address the subject directly in detail. Is there something out there (perhaps a special-effects magazine) that goes into the required detail? Davémon (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is this one, that describes Gothmog apparently in some detail, but I was only able to find a cached snippet and not the whole thing: "Perhaps the most extreme representation of this visual horror is Gothmog, most notable for his command, “Release the prisoners.” The monstrousness of his face is matched by his actions: he returns only the prisoners' heads. It is arguable that" and then it cuts off. The Google books verstion is returning a 404 error for me for some reason, and the Amazon link doesn't provide any way to view the contents, which it usually does.  I'm still looking though. - SudoGhost 14:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great find, SudoGhost. Here is a working Google book. Gothmog, however, is really only treated with the one sentence you quoted above. The next paragraph goes then on with the importance of meals and the eating habits of the various races and characters. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now added some of your sources to the article. De728631 (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the GBooks link (and adding the sources in the article), I was hoping it went into more detail about Gothmog specifically, but I think what it does say is more than a trivial mention since it's pointing out that Gothmog is the pinnacle of "scary orcs" and details why; no original research is required to extract the content, which seems to satisfy the "significant coverage" part of the WP:GNG. I'll keep looking but I think what's currently in the article is enough to warrant an article, although better sources would certainly help that along. - SudoGhost 16:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Despite the incredible insignificance of this fictional character in the scheme of world history, it appears to meet WP:GNG and at least having a separate article is logical in the scheme of the many LOTR related articles we have.  The most intriguing part of this AfD is that a user named after a good Tolkien character made the nomination and is trying to delete an evil Tolkien character.  Could the bias not be anymore obvious?--Milowent • hasspoken  20:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I could see editing Template:The Lord of the Rings to split off "minor characters" into a separate section. Everyone doesn't need to be versed in the minutiae of Fatty Bolger to understand the books.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, no coverage on the subject in non-primary sources beyond trivial mentions. I don't understand how some user can claim the article meets GNG while not providing a single source that would actually make this article meet GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a trivial mention. Mentioning Gothmog as the "iconic scary orc" and then going into detail as to why is not trivial, it is the very definition of significant coverage as defined at WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 19:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You won't build an article only from that. Per WP:WHYN, "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Barely a sentence on the character is trivial. Counting on that and the trivia of a real-life bug being named after the character is going make a very poor article that would be unlikely to survive another nomination. Notability isn't only about finding a certain number of sources but whether a worthy article can be made out of them. I don't think that's the case here, and I'm apparently not the only one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between WP:N and WP:V. There is significant coverage in reliable sources that establish the notability of the subject, and content in the article is verified by reliable sources.  It doesn't really help to cite WP:WHYN when there's already more than "a few sentences that could be written and supported by sources about the subject", so that's not a concern for this article.  Given that the prior "delete" arguments were for a version of the article that only used primary sources, it would appear that, until clarification is given to the contrary, you are the only one. - SudoGhost 19:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there is no "significant coverage that establish the notability of the subject". As far as I can see, the article still only uses primary (or at least non-independent) content (the movie trilogy DVD commentary) and a few new trivia but that doesn't change the notability issue.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As has already been demonstrated, this is not a trivial mention, at least not as defined by WP:GNG. An article's notability does not depend on how many primary sources are in the article, and the article does not only contain primary content.  Being based primarily on primary sources is an issue, but that's an editing issue, not a notability issue. - SudoGhost 23:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources are enough to establish notability. Clearly a topic of interest to many, if mainly for his disgusting appearance in the movie.BigJim707 (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of notability. Primary references and the subject is not covered by 3rd party sources in any depth. this is a trivial mention - it's 1 sentence. WP:GNG states "significant coverage", that would mean it is discussed at length. Davémon (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Davemon, no secondary sources substantiate notability here. Claritas § 15:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Having multiple species named after this is quite an accolade and the topic appears as a headword in a variety of reference works such as The New Tolkien Companion. Warden (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2012 (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.