Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lambengolmor


 * 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 Elf (Middle-earth). There is so little content and no references that it is hard to justify existence of this article as a separate one. A merge to a list would be relevant, if there is one. Until then, a redirect. Tone 13:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lambengolmor

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Very minor aspect of the works of Tolkien, doesn't have any impact on the plot, doesn't play any significant role (as a group: the individual people are important, but not as being a member of the Lambengolmor. Two Google news hits, not from reliable independent sources though. Among the Google Books results, most are not very impressive, referencing the yahoo group of the same name, not the Tolkien fiction directly. Only the 1000 page "The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion & Guide: Chronology" gives one short reference to the Lambengolmor, basically restating our article. This is not sufficient basis to have an article here. If even such an extensive book mentions this in such a minor way, then it is obviously an extremely minor aspect of the works of Tolkien. Fram (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is not significant, reliable, 3rd party coverage of the topic of the article as such, therefore it completely fails notability. Would be an OK article on a fan site, but not Wikipedia. --Slashme (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In-universe trivia; redirect to Elf (Middle-earth). --EEMIV (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I hate this aspect of Wikipedia. There's no reason whatsoever to delete this page &mdash; some people, notably myself, found it helpful, it is obviously reference-able by the admission of the nominator and yet people still want to delete it. Notability is not a crusade. The point of Wikipedia is not to keep out information that is only helpful to a small group of people (such as Tolkien fans); in fact, keeping this information has been crucial to our success. Deleting this article is deleting sourceable, accurate, valuable, if niche, information that is not a vanity page. There is never a good reason to do such as thing. Kyle Barbour 02:04, 24 December 2009 (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.