Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Round World version of the Silmarillion (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Round World version of the Silmarillion
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2021 October 13 to decide between keep, delete, merge, or redirect. Please note that a simple redirect to The Silmarillion (without any relevant content on the target page) has been rejected at RfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣<b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 20:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have now massively expanded the article.  The redirect that resulted from the previous AFD is singularly inappropriate because The Silmarillion page does not discuss the topic.  Also inappropriate is Cosmology of Tolkien's legendarium page which only discusses the canonical version, not this version.
 * This is an important element (possibly the critical element as identified by Tolkien himself) in the evolution of JRR Tolkien's universe. Sources providing enough material to justify a standalone article include,
 * Christopher Tolkien, Morgoth's Ring – discussed at length
 * Elizabeth A. Whittingham The Evolution of Tolkien's Mythology – discussed at length
 * Douglas Kane Arda Reconstructed: The Creation of the Published Silmarillion – discussed at length
 * J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia – discussed in the entries for "Earth", "Middle-earth" , and "The Silmarillion"
 * <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * <S>Keep-as per above.Best Regards.--- ✨Lazy Maniik✨  02:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)  WP:SOCKSTRIKE  Java  Hurricane  06:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current version is infinity better than the unreferenced stub we had that got deleted: . While the topic is extremely niche, it is arguably encyclopedic and in the current form perfectly fine for Wikipedia. Thanks for the rescue. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per WP:HEY. Enough sources are now there in the article to pass WP:GNG, and I'm quite sure others may also be found.  Java Hurricane  08:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not seem to be such a minor topic after all looking the amount of primary sources. The secondary sources provided by show that the topic fulfills the notability requirements for a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable and sourced as it stands now. And there are no OR concerns, just for the record. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is clearly notable


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.