Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thangorodrim


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thangorodrim

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does not establish notability independent of Tolkien's works through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. This kind of obsessive fancruft belongs on Wikia.  You should have listed the entire category in a single AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment There are several independent works discussing this mountain: J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment, Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia, On the Shoulders of Hobbits: The Road to Virtue with Tolkien and Lewis, The Origins of Tolkien's Middle-earth For Dummies, and Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings: A Guide to Middle-earth.  --Cerebellum (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many things cover it if they don't provide a real world perspective. The symbolism discussion sort of counts, but it's part of a wider topic of symbolism better explored elsewhere. There shouldn't be a single sentence in each location mentioned in that section, but a cohesive section or article elsewhere discussing the topic in its entirety. The closest thing about the topic itself is the mapping error, but that would be something applied to a more general section about his writing. TTN (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting argument! If I understand you correctly, you're saying that a topic can meet WP:GNG, but if the sources discuss it in an in-universe way only, then we can't write about it without running afoul of WP:NOTPLOT, so we should delete - is that right?  Are there any policies stating that explicitly? --Cerebellum (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming for the moment that we're ignoring the two examples of related topics that shouldn't really factor into the notability equation for this specific article, both NOTPLOT and WP:WAF should discount the other three sources overall. They only contain primary information, so the cannot provide WAF's secondary information requirement and obviously only add to the plot discussion to fail NOTPLOT. They can be used to cite in-universe information if there is also pertinent real world information, but otherwise fail to establish notability from simply repeating what is found in the primary sources. I'm personally adamant in that the other two apply more to his general writing practices and the analysis of the overall symbolism found in his works than they do to this small part of those, so I guess it would depend on how you view them if this argument were to actually hold any weight. TTN (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're definitely making me think here. I see what you're saying, and am mindful of WAF's emphatic "Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary."  Those three sources, while reliable and independent of the subject, are nothing but plot summary.  According to our policies, then, the article should be deleted.  I don't understand why this is the case though - if a topic has been discussed in reliable secondary sources, so that the information can be easily verified, what purpose is served by deleting it?  The fact that these three books discuss this topic shows that it is of general interest, so how does deleting this article make the encyclopedia better?  --Cerebellum (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say collecting information for a general encyclopedia on the author's work would be more an indication of notability for the overall topic than that of the individual topics within. You can certainly say that they are being "covered" in a sense, but they aren't collected because each individual topic is displaying importance. It's their overall cohesiveness into describing his fictional world that is the reason for their coverage. TTN (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps you're right. I'm still not sure so I'm withdrawing my !vote.  --Cerebellum (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Tolkien research provides tons of sources to draw on to justify an article for every person, mountain and stream in Middle Earth. I'm not convinced we should do that unless there is compelling reason why that topic is highly significant. Better suited to a specialized Tolkien encyclopedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources are sufficient. Of course elements of Tolkien's works are discussed in works dealing with Tolkien. An objection is like saying that essentially everything published on major elements in Shakespeare's plays are in works dealing with shakespeare. The material that should go to Wikia is the ones that are just alluded to, and this is more important than that.  DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you seen Category:Middle-earth locations? 47 articles on "Middle Earth Mountains". Now, a lot of them are redirects, but look at the history, they have been converted from articles. There was a time when fans thought it would be cool to use Wikipedia as an all encompassing Middle Earth Encyclopedia (really more like a glossary since they are all plot descriptions). As for Shakespeare, look at the Categories there is nothing like this, nor should their be, just because something could be written about doesn't mean it's notable, see WP:NOTPLOT. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Shakespeare's settings are notable as there are entire books written about them such as Shakespeare's Italy: Functions of Italian Locations in Renaissance Drama. If Wikipedia doesn't do more to cover them, then this will not be helped by attacking the material that we do have.  For my part, I've done work on that and other authors such as Dickens' London.  I'd like to do more but the time gets eaten up by these vexatious nominations. Warden (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per the reference finds by Cerebellum. A GScholar search finds about a hundred results, with a number of articles from Tolkien Studies: An Annual Scholarly Review mentioning the fictional location. There are plenty of secondary independent reliable sources out there upon which to base short article. The article could use more references, but there are no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. This is not an indiscriminate collection of information and secondary sources are available, so WP:NOTPLOT doesn't apply here. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Weak keep. This isn't the Tolkien setting-piece I'd most like to hang my hat on in an inclusion/deletion debate over the legendarium, admittedly. But Tolkien's world is studied and analyzed by scholarly sources to an extent few other modern fantasy settings can hope to aspire to. Tolkien Studies entirely notwithstanding, there's some discussion of the location in the pages of Modern Fiction Studies, and in the 2000 Praeger-published J.R.R. Tolkien and His Literary Resonances: Views of Middle-earth. Probably more. The current article is in grim condition and ought to cite such sources (including their discussion of the symbolic value of the setting) but fails to do so, yet that is not a cause for deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable as seen by the list of sources provided above. The suggestion that we should delete this to promote Wikia is absurd.  Wikia is a commercial, profit-making rival to Wikipedia and we should no more assist them than we do the Encyclopedia Britannica.  Just about everything published by Wikipedia is found elsewhere (the main exception being these time-wasting internal arguments).  Publication elsewhere is what establishes notability and therefore is quite the opposite of a reason to delete. Warden (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the above Keepers. BOZ (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into Minor places in Arda (for Iron Mountains), the article itself fails to establish the notability of the topic, per the complete absence of "significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources" required by WP:GNG. Sources have been proposed in this discussion, unfortunately after careful review, all of them are only short, trivial mentions within plot summaries and do not provide significant coverage or out-of-universe information such as origin, development, influence or reception, without which it is impossible to build an encyclopedic article that goes beyond a mere plot summary, per WP:NOTPLOT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2013 (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.