Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Francis Reuel Tolkien


 * 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 keep. Consensus is clear that WP:CRIME along with WP:GNG has been met. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

John Francis Reuel Tolkien

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has been basically copied from Tolkien_family. WP:COATRACK & WP:POVFORK The subject of the article is not notable in their own right. Additional material has been added which is speculative and not backed up by the sources cited. WP:NRVE The contentious content in the article appears to be based on scandal or gossip. WP:NOTSCANDAL The user who created this article was invited to gain consensus for new material here Talk:Tolkien_family but has not done so. The creator's edit history strongly suggests there a close personal interest and non-neutral point of view. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tolkien_family#Father_John_Tolkien_child_sexual_abuse_allegations WP:NPOV Tonyinman (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Father Tolkien has, sadly, become a notable person in his own right, with articles about him on the BBC, Guardian, Times, Telegraph, the Tablet, Church Times and all the Birmingham papers. Rathfelder (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tonyinman (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tonyinman (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tonyinman (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tonyinman (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * delete If notable, only for one very negative BLP event. This is not rogue's gallery or the crime blotter. Do not see this as adequate claim to notability. The negative BLP conduct is alleged. Any mention at all is salacious and tabloidesque. Does not meet any inclusion criterion you might care to name.16:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * further-- Read andendorse delete rationale of nominator. The person who readdded the contentious material has asked for page protection to keep it there and was declined by me. I followed the AfD link here after reviewing and reverting.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I suspect that if he were not the eldest son of the author, there would be less interest in this particular priest's problems, but we have a conflagration of streams and the subject's notability is clear and the article meets WP:GNG as it is currently written. If content must be removed from the original, so be it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is reported today that the church's legal advisers conceded in 2003 that the allegations would stand up in court.
 * Keep. Tolkien is dead, has been dead for a while, and will probably remain dead for the forseeable future, so WP:BLP is not in play. His father is *very* famous and important, and for very famous and important people, we tend to lower the bar a little bit I think. This is more in deference to the fact that people want to know more lots of details (such as what's the deal with their children etc.) for very famous and important people, more than can fit in their article, than it is to independent notability of the offspring per se. We can see that there is a Category:J. R. R. Tolkien which has ten subcategories and 51 other pages, so if there's any reasonable basis for including stuff like his minor works, his mentors, his lovers, his children, and so forth, we should consider that people are going to be interested in that.


 * And there is a reasonable basis: John Francis Reuel Tolkien meets the WP:BIO standard for a stand-alone article, easily. (It's only because he's JRR Tolkein's son than for anything he personally accomplished, but for whatever reason there it is: meets WP:BIO.


 * So and since the article already exists, why destroy it? I'm not inclined to be of the mind "Well, we have this info, but let's not not share it with readers" as a rule, regardless of how boring and trivial I find the material to be. Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is neutral and well-referenced. BLP does not apply. So far as WP:CRIME is concerned, the issue meets the standard of "historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role"; and "or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" is satisfied in large part because he is his father's son, as Herostratus notes, above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Crime states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Firstly, there was no conviction and secondly, there is already a page at [tolkien_family], so why the need for a new page. Why not add content to the existing page subject to consensus existing talk page? Tonyinman (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Unfortunately, meets WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME. Catrìona (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:Crime states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Firstly, there was no conviction and secondly, there is already a page at [tolkien_family], so why the need for a new page. Why not add content to the existing page subject to consensus existing talk page? Tonyinman (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)*Comment. Can I, for the record, object in the strongest possible terms to the nominator's obnoxious "The creator's edit history strongly suggests there a close personal interest and non-neutral point of view", which I've addressed at further length at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tolkien_family#Father_John_Tolkien_child_sexual_abuse_allegations . --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the edits related to cases involving the same lawyer and this was a reasonable query. Tonyinman (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the sum total of Rathfelder's edits on one of the three articles diff - correcting a typo. And here's the sum total of their edits to a second of the three diff - 603 char. And yes, Rathfelder is entirely responsible for the Richard Scorer article. And for that, you would traduce Rathfelder in persuit of your deletion. Delete your account. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote an article about Scorer, and while working on it I read other related articles, some of which needed attention, and I came across other topics which merited articles. I also did a lot of work on Category:Child sexual abuse, which was a bit of a mess. None of that is evidence of any conflict of interest. And for what it is worth, I am very sorry Tolkien's name has been dragged through the mud. Rathfelder (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, I feel the same way as everyone who wants to keep this article that it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Also like I have stated before that too much deletion for no good reason is in no one's best interest. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NCRIME. Good sourcing. BabbaQ (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:Crime states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Firstly, there was no conviction and secondly, there is already a page at [tolkien_family], so why the need for a new page. Why not add content to the existing page subject to consensus existing talk page? Tonyinman (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He isn't known only in connection with a criminal event. Rathfelder (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I explained in my 'keep' why WP:CRIME was met. Tonyinman's not having it, but this AfD is by now snowball keep, so it makes little difference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Tonyinman's latest edits to the article makes me wonder if he has skin in this game. Rathfelder (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Covered in a Tolkien context - e.g (and several others). Also very widely covered in a crime context over several years on a national level - . Lack of conviction moot given he's not a BLP. WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG clearly met. Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2018 (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.