Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor


 * 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 Gondor. No objection to bold changing of the target as there is no clear consensus where it should point. Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Rivers and Beacon-Hills of Gondor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an essay that has never been published in it's entirety if the article is believed, and may not have actually been finished. The only source I can find that really discusses this work is. That source isn't a review, but it does talk about the essay and how it reflected Tolkien's changing ideas of his fictional phonologies, which I concede is a slight indication of importance. You may respond with WP:NBOOK #5. I personally read NBOOK #5 as being common-sense enough to exclude unfinished and unpublished essays that don't seem to garner much scholarly attention, but I don't know if that view is widely held by the community or not. Hog Farm (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete. Most of Tolkien works have been studied to death, but right now I am also not seeing enough to make this essay notable. No, not everything penned by a notable author is notable, WP:NBOOK requires 2+ reviews, or other indications of impact, and this is not shown currently (Tolkien Encyclopedia discusses it in a single paragraph: ; I don't think that qualifies as in-depth treatment). The source cited by Hog Farm would pass in-depth, but how reliable is Tengwestië The online journal of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship? See also /Elvish Linguistic Fellowship. I am afraid this may be not scholarly but just scholarly-like fan analysis. PS. Still, all things considered, I am leaning towards that source being in-depth and reliable. If anyone can show another source of similar or higher quality that is in-depth I'd be willing to change my vote to keep. But right now I am not seeing it, and one passable source is not enough in light of our policies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, the worst case here would be merger into another page such as J. R. R. Tolkien bibliography or Gondor. But WP:NBOOK is indeed applicable: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a never fully published essay.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NBOOK #5, which says nothing about whether a work needs to be finished or published. It says that "the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study," which for Tolkien it obviously is. You can nitpick any individual source to death if you want to, but the deletion rationale is basically "there aren't any secondary sources discussing this work, except for..." and then that's followed by a list of all the secondary sources that discuss the work. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Tolkien's shopping list notable then? How about his college term papers?  Also, the sentence immediately after NBOOK number 5 states that yet-to-be published works are outside of the scope of NBOOK.  This would have to be judged by GNG, which it doesn't seem to meet because the analyzed sources don't seem meet GNG per Piotrus' analysis. Hog Farm (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect, to J.R.R. Tolkien bibliography as I believe this just barely passes GNG. Of course, as this book was never published, it does not pass WP:NBOOK #5. However, I believe the paragraph of coverage it received in the Tolkien Encyclopedia counts as significant coverage, and therefore towards a pass of GNG. Per Piotrus’ comments above, the other sources identified are probably reliable, and therefore also count towards GNG, meaning this article satisfies it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Changing my vote, as I no longer consider the coverage in the Tolkien encyclopaedia to be significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a suitable merge or redirect target? buidhe 01:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Light Merge/Redirect to J. R. R. Tolkien bibliography. Piotrus' analysis seems pretty spot-on to me.  However, given that while the sources do not push it past the WP:GNG, they do warrant it being mentioned on Tolkien's bibliography page, with a note indicating that it was unpublished.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Answering Hog Farm's question about shopping lists and college term papers: Yes, if Tolkien's completed shopping lists were notable, then his unfinished shopping list could be notable as well. Juvenilia for well-studied authors are sometimes notable; if any of Tolkien's college term papers were preserved in the archives then they would probably be reprinted and studied. Piotrus' analysis is nitpicking sources and blowing smoke. "I am afraid this may be not scholarly but just scholarly-like fan analysis" is a weak argument; any published literary criticism could be termed "just scholarly-like fan analysis" if IDONTLIKEIT. Hog Farm is advocating a "common sense" reading of NBOOK. It is common sense to say that a well-studied author's unfinished essay can be notable, and sliding it down the slippery slope doesn't turn it into a shopping list. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to an article about the world from LOTR, since the essay is the author's attempt to clarify an in-universe issue. I don't see the need to add it to a bibliography as anything more than a letter, but I wouldn't object to it if the bibliography is set up for these kinds of letters. Jontesta (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2020 (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.