Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 09:51, 24 May 2022

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. MBisanz 00:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Finrod Felagund

Finrod Felagund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V verifies its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. This character only has in-universe notability as no sources support real-world notability. AadaamS (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. A major figure in the Tolkien legendarium, and the subject of significant critical attention. Note the dozens of Google Scholar hits and such commentary in (non-fannish) academic books like this one , to say nothing of popular commentary. No doubt there's Tolkien cruft that might be pruned, but this is an example of an article on a significant character that merits expansion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect as it's still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. The "parent" is already notable. There is more than enough material here to justify a split off the parent, even ignoring the other points raised. Where exactly would you redirect this? -- RM 13:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Contains only in-universe content, contrary to WP:WAF. While it is conceivable judging from the above that a policy-compliant article could be written, as it is the article would need a total rewrite from an out-of-universe perspective and can therefore be safely deleted.  Sandstein  16:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• That's simply not accurate. Noting, for example, Tolkien's evolution of the character over the course of his writing isn't "in-universe", (even though the treatment in the existing text is cursory) and there are full-length books published by university presses on the subject of the development of Tolkien's legendarium (e.g., Arda Reconstructed ); academic journals (eg, Tolkien Studies ), all sorts of popular culture analysis, and so on. An in-universe treatment is necessary for a framework; the fact that the article hasn't progressed very much beyond that yet hardly weighs on the notability of the subject. The existence of the relevant body of academic criticism is more than sufficient to demonstrate notability, as it is in general for most authors, just as it is for subjects like inaccessible cardinals, the Banach-Tarski paradox, and the Whitney embedding theorem, whose articles similarly show no real-world impact. Note also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jiz Lee, where a far less adequate article was kept in anticipation of a policy-compliant text, even though no significant steps were then or have been since taken to do so. Academic analysis demonstrates notability; the fact that the relevant sources are paywalled, print-only, or otherwise difficult to access doesn't justify making existing coverage even worse. If you'd like to drop about $1000 US to but me Arda Reconstucted, a run of Tolkien Studies, and a few other key references, you could expect to see some article expansion in the near future . . . . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a proper article about this topic can probably be written. But this is not it. It's fancruft that can be deleted, until such time as somebody competent recreates the article. Publishing articles that are 95% fanwankery is detrimental to Misplaced Pages's overall quality.  Sandstein  20:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

How can an article be improved if it is deleted? That is why there are notability guidelines, which this clearly meets, and content guidelines. Citing content guidelines is rarely a valid reason to delete. Even if the article has to be changed a one line stub to fix content guidelines, this still does not change the fact that it is notable. And who cares that the quality of total articles is lowered by some very small amount? It's a work in progress, let it do its thing. -- RM 11:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Also, WP:FANCRUFT is not a valid deletion reason. The fact that an article needs improvement is not a deletion reason. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. While the subject was notable enough before, I have expanded the article with real-world perspectives from reliable sources. De728631 (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per User:VMS Mosaic. --Fixuture (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:GNG, article has good references backing notability, thanks to De728631, is not "95% fanwankery", am shocked by this sort of comment/language from an apparently jaded administrator? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2016 (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.