Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Middle-earth (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Middle-Earth. Arguments in favor of keeping were that Tolkien's works have received more literary analysis than most other works of fiction, and that therefore the word "minor" has no relevance for the article-worthyness of this topic. However, as wikipedia aims to treat creative works "in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works" (WP:NOT) and there already is Middle-earth to add such material, this list appears unnecessary, in particular since it relies on WP:PRIMARY sources. There were concerns of merge histories, attributions and incoming redirects, so I think it's best to close this as a redirect rather than deletion. This also allows editors to cull and merge things from the page history if they believe this helps the Middle-earth article. – sgeureka t•c 08:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Minor places in Middle-earth
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is effectively a glossary and about as (un)encyclopedic as a list of all (place)names in Tolkien books or any other series; this list fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION and WP:NLIST. (We also have Minor places in Beleriand and Minor places in Arda which should be deleted as well if this goes). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The list's name is an admission that it is little more than a collection of fancruft. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 05:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Not much else to say. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete  - the article's name indicates that this is only about minor places, and therefore not likely to be notable. Vorbee (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Delete voters reasoning is lame, harping on word “minor”. Offhand, “minor” places in Middle Earth are more significant than 99 percent of places listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, where i happen to spend most of my editing time. Shall we delete articles about the relatively minor countries on earth, say? What matters is sourcing, and i think it’s adequate here. Nothing is disputed. —Doncram (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Except the minor issue of 99% of said sourcing being WP:PRIMARY... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are changing your argument then, "PRIMARY" is not part of deletion nomination statement. Okay to do so, but it is different.  And actually I don't think usage of primary sources is really an argument for deletion.  For one thing, primary sources can be used "with care".  And there is no dispute about anything. --Doncram (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, though the deletion nomination asserts issues of GNG, NFICTION, and NLIST, I don't see specific evidence about those, and I tend to think this article does not fail on any of those. It is one thing to challenge the article's editors to come up with more explicit sourcing, like by tagging the article.  But I am pretty sure there exists lots of sourcing about placenames in Tolkien's works, including some extensive notes stuff by Tolkien-guy.  I imagine there are masters theses and Ph.D. dissertations and academic articles.  No mention of wp:BEFORE or other investigation into sources is present here.  I tend to think this is quite valid by what NLIST is supposed to be about, that the topic of "placenames in Tolkien works" is indeed a real thing. --Doncram (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article seems not to be some editors' favorite cup of tea.  But it is an extensive, well-developed compendium/creation, that is one of the things that Wikipedia is good for.  There may be a philosophical disagreement about what Wikipedia should be for.  Like this reminds me of AFD about some list of flags by numbers of colors, which I thought was great use of Wikipedia in a traditional way, accessible to children, say, and obviously not requiring extensive sourcing to notice that there are 3 colors in the flag of France, etc.  Vs. others saying in effect it wasn't lofty/intellectual/rigorously sourced enough.  It was indeed a compendium, and I think some objected because it appeared to them to be an inappropriate synthesis.  But truthfully, lots that we do does amount to, or involve, synthesis (including lots of list-articles which i have created or developed and which are 100% clearly good contributions, IMHO).  The disagreement boiled down to a difference of philosophy of what an encyclopedia can provide.  Here, I think this is an extensive, good/great contribution, about an important topic, and learned/intellectual in its own way, though obviously of great interest to some and little/no interest to others. --Doncram (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That philosophy boils down to WP:ITSUSEFUL losing a battle versus WP:GNG. I used to be an inclusionist and I used to create such articles on fictional topics. But the community ruled that this is not welcome here. Unless you can change this, through RfC or such, this argument here will just be nothing more than a reminder that we have a list of bad arguments not to use during AfDs, and of course, AFD=/=vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Beware a temporary/local new consensus, contrary to larger/longer perspective.  The deletion nomination and early !votes above seem to ignore discussion, directions towards specific sources in Articles for deletion/Minor places in Middle-earth (first nomination, in 2007).  Including learned discussion/sourcing by Charles Tolkien (son) which I vaguely knew of.  That afd was closed "Keep" with about 13 Keepers vs. fewer Deleters.  Trying to ping all participants there (probably not all active now): . --Doncram (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the fine reasoning and evidence cited in an earlier AfD. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Doncram. I don't see why this had been re-listed. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: This kind of writing is unfamiliar to me too, but there is guidance including MOS:INUNIVERSE. Maybe editing is needed. But interesting to me is guidance that footnotes are mostly NOT needed: “The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. (However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research.)” —Doncram (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is an immense amount of literature, such that most of the individual listings could do with expansion. A few could  some of these could justify articles. Rather than do that, a combination article is more appropriate.  Tolkien's work is of major importance at several different levels of discourse, and only one of them is fan literature.  It's also important anddiscussed academically, it's discussed in relation to film.  The linguisticaspects arediscussed,and I expectthere's going to me considerably more of the psychological andocialideas that influenced the naming.
 * But WP needs to do similarly with other major classic works of literature. It has done so only a few enormousely popular franchises, but there's room for similar articles on hunderds of otherworks as important as this at the times and historically.  DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or Redirect to Middle-earth. Goustien (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is fancruft pure and simple. There is nothing showing that these places are of such note we need list-like coverage of them. If they were real places they would merit article, but they are not. Wikipedia is only meant to be a gazeteer to the real world, not a gazeteer to fictional worlds, so there is no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * What about all the literature on exactly this topic? I suppose if one denies the existence of the extensive sources that exist, then one can justify dismissal of the topic on basis of the resulting lack of sources, perhaps that is a strategy?
 * What about the quote from previous AFD which IronGargoyle provided in diff form above? So no one has to follow a diff, here it is directly:

"Numerous independent sources are available; The Atlas of Middle-earth by Fonstadt, The Complete Guide to Middle-earth by Foster, the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia by Drout, The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion by Hammond and Scull, et cetera. Literally dozens (possibly hundreds when languages other than English are considered) of books have been written about the works of Tolkien... with detailed analysis of the names of these places, their possible real world analogs, demographics, et cetera. Organizing and referencing everything Tolkien related which was put on Wikipedia in the earliest days of the project takes time... but the absence of references establishing notability on each article is not the same things as being 'non-notable'. These topics satisfy WP:FICTION in spades. --CBD 10:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)"
 * I hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The first two sources you cite are pure universe summaries, like the The Discworld Almanak or such. WP:PRIMARY. The Encyclopedia, which I have recently analyzed, is better (well, some of its entries are, some are no better than PRIMARY). But it does not cover most of the entries on this list. You are effectively throwing sources (just like CBD did back then) hoping that something sticks. Nope. Not a single of those sources discusses why a collection of random placenames is encyclopedic. A few ME locations may warrant their own article. We don't need lists like this. Encyclopedias are not glossaries. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - This might be one of the only fictional franchises where I might support a general list of locations, but there has to be a cutoff point. "Minor places" should be that point. This does not establish notability. The locations are not necessary to understand wider context of the franchise. The only keep argument seems to be "just because." If there are sources for a location, then it should be on the main list and not this list. TTN (talk)
 * Another !vote hinging on the word "minor". There are sources.  Including the direct works of Tolkien, which are valid for this kind of thing, and, per MOS editing guideline, do not need to be cited by inline citations.  And including multiple scholarly works, as referenced above and in previous AFD.  There is nothing made up here, it all is wholly accurate, as far as you and I know.  And it is sourced by the works themselves, at least, and probably every item is also discussed in the major external studies of the works. --Doncram (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:TTN, you seem to be assuming that there exists a "Major places in Middle-earth" list-article, and you are suggesting a merge to there? I think that is an editing suggestion, and not suitable for an AFD decision, and there is not such a merge target anyhow.  The AFD-nominated list-article is in a system with Minor places in Arda, Minor places in Beleriand, List of Middle-earth rivers, List of Middle-earth roads, and List of Middle-earth objects.  As an editorial matter, I suppose a committee could decide to merge them all.  Then it would of course be perfectly valid for anyone to split them back out as an editorial matter.  Not for AFD. --Doncram (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then provide the sources. I hate this talking point. "There are sources" repeated ad nauseam is simply a deflection when these articles sit around for years gathering moss. They should not have been created in the first place until sources are present. Tolkien being highly analyzed is not in itself an argument for keeping articles on his works. On this article in particular, I see nothing of value. I have not read the article top to bottom, but anything real world seems to be trivial stuff like discussion on alternate spellings or minor commentary.
 * For this article to exist, it either needs to be notable on its own as a grouping, or it needs to be a valid split from the main article. If you say "Locations in the works of Tolkien" is a notable topic, I'd agree with you. I think summary style is better than a list, but I would not argue against a list existing currently. If we agree a list is fine, then we can agree that not all locations are equal. If we can agree with that, then we can agree that locations classified as minor are too inconsequential to include. If we're arguing that it's a valid split, then it's the same case of proving that these locations are necessary to be covered. I don't think that is the case given that these are minor locations with no important sourcing currently. You trying to turn this into an outside of AfD content issue is simply wikilaywering. TTN (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * TTN does have a point, that essentially there is a big list of places in Tolkien's works, which we all should understand is an important, landmark, well-crafted universe that preceded, set the stage for others. Tolkien's scholarly knowledge of languages, and his careful creation of this universe of places and back-stories and so on, is known, though maybe not to all commenters here.  He was also highly concerned about, and then involved in, issues of translation of these place-names into other-language translations of the Tolkien works, so he wrote more about the translation problems and provided guidance.  About preserving the type of relationship that applies between modern English and the real old languages relating to English and the constructed old languages of the universe, about translating those relations to other modern languages.  And there is scholarly discussion, books about these things, by others.  The topic of "places in Tolkien's works" is unquestionably significant.  So we have a valid big list-article.  What TTN and maybe some others are saying is they want to jump in and set a cut-off for notability, hinging on the word "minor".  Well, in Wikipedia's list-articles, decisions about determination of what items are list-item-notable are directed to be made by consensus of editors of the list-article, to be discussed at Talk page(s) of the list-article(s).  In many lists, editors may decide to limit items to ones having separate articles.  In many more, a different, broader level is set. (Often this is better because it does not drive people to create many new separate articles.)  For this known-to-be-significant broad topic, there is an intelligent world knowing about these items (not particularly me, and i think not particularly most of the "delete" voters here).  It's not a matter for external-type editors like us, to make the list-item-notability-type decisions.  It is legitimately a matter for the "experts" or at least the editors who care about developing this list-article/system, and is not a matter for external AFD-type editors to make and impose, without much understanding. --Doncram (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are showing a clear failure to assume good faith. You attack anyone who stands for deletion of this unjustified article as not understanding the topic of Tolkien, his work, or how he created it. Nothing you say shows that we need an article on even one minor place in Middle-Earth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete — as others have said, this is not an encyclopedia of Tolkien's imaginary world. We should document Tolkien's fiction in real world terms: when was it written, what were his influences, how many books did he sell, what did the critics say. A scholarly discussion of Tolkien's fictional geography would be one thing — probably belonging in a journal article rather than Wikipedia. But this is not that, it is a fictional gazetteer which belongs to a fansite. This is not a fansite. I've grown up reading Tolkien; I know a lot of these places. But there's no reason to have this page. Some fanboys had fun making it, but it doesn't belong at Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a real encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This one needs another week. The consensus seems to be leaning ever so slightly towards this being fancruft, but we have an earlier AfD that was clearly closed keep. A number of !voters have not provided policy-based rationales, given that this is clearly a controversial debate, hopefully we will get more policy-based input so that whoever has to close this in a week has something more to go on.
 * Delete Total fancruft that is, frankly, more fit for the LOTR Wiki.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not sure about the title, but a list of places in Middle-earth is certainly valid as a summary of elements in the works of one of the most significant authors in the English language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep a page of Minor places in Middle Earth is appropriate given that all the major ones should have their own articles. Artw (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment When the forces for keep bring up as defense a citation to the dark days of 2007 when Wikipedia was uncontrollably inclusionist and building itself to be an project that inadequately covered and marginalized women and their interests while over emphasizing things interesting to men, I feel to say we are building keep votes on outdated precedents. I have yet to see a good argument distinguishing this type of article from one that comprehensibly tells us every named character in The Lord of the Rings. Both avoid any analysis of significance. To justify a list like this we have to show that every entry has at least some significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete super minor elements of a fictional world, fails GNG/NFICTION. Kacper IV (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could some consideration please be given to what to do with the edit history of lists such as these, which were typically created from stubs that got merged to form a list. See Merge and delete: "Pages that have been merged to other articles should almost never be deleted, since our copyright requires all authors to be publicly credited". There are currently 160 pages that redirect to Minor places in Middle-earth (there are similar large numbers for other in-universe lists that are up for deletion - most of the content started as stubs before a wave of merging some years ago). It may be that there is a reason that deletion is OK, and still satisfies the licensing requirements, but if anyone wanted to merge some of this content to other articles, it would be necessary to preserve the edit history in some way to satisfy the attribution requirements of Wikipedia's licensing. Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We could just redirect this to Middle-Earth or such, through it is not a very plausible search term... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Middle-Earth. Goustien (talk) 07:14, 28 November 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.