Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Middle-earth locations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. While it may look like fan-fiction, Tolkien was a well-established writer, and similar pages exist in other Wikipedias; somoene even translated it to Latin. Sourcing of the article might be a little better, but that's nothing to discuss at RfD.--Eptalon (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth locations[change source]

Middle-earth locations (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

MrMeAndMrMe has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Wikipedia is not a fanclub, this arguable belongs in a fandom. The only citations here are from Tolkien's work and aren't really notable at all. This article is relatively impressive for standing for 12 years with this 1800+ views so I'm not entirely sure if yelm would agree with it, but I don't really think that it's very encyclopedic. As a side-note not related to the RfD, maybe one could add an uncopyrighted image if possible(I don't know if it is, but I think Tolkien still possesses a copyright). Also, the name is very misleading, possibly meaning places where middle-earth is. Maybe rename it to "Places in Middle-earth" or something? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 19:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

Keep While it certainly needs a heavy clean up (someone loves them some bold...) , the topic is highly notable and the subject of untold number of books, articles, research papers, documentaries, movies, songs.. pretty much everything. I wouldn't be terribly shocked to learn there are cave paintings about it... As it is an expansion/combination of multiple En articles (geo of and individual pages for locations) naming gets a bit tricky though does seem fine as it is. As to free images, the US copyrights on the stories are 2032 for the Hobbit and 2050 for LotR, more so if looking at the movies (release date +95 years). UK rights would be 70 yrs after Tolkien's death so 2043. Public domain is not happening anytime soon, probably not in my lifetime. --Creol(talk) 04:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't really prove that there is a lot of books, articles, research, etc as the only sources mentioned in the article is from the one and only Tolkien himself.

Naming isn't really fine, in my opinion as it is very confusing. "Locations" makes me feel like places that Middle Earth is in. The actual definition is places that are in Middle Earth. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 04:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning you give for this nom is that you don't like the tone, it needs more refs and you don't think it is the topic is encyclopedic. The first two are not reasons to delete anything, they are issues to be address. Tag it and move on. As to being encyclopedic. This subject has had extensive coverage in practically every medium. It covers elements of a source that is practically the very genesis of an entire genre of literature and various entertainment. The article seems to be designed to provide information on a well documented work of literature. The extent of even the most basic of information on these locales is far beyond a single article. We list them all in one place do to our limited info but on larger wikis many of these locales often have entire articles dedicated to each of them. Unless we split off this article into a host of stubs, keeping all the information in one place is the best option. --Creol(talk) 18:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still am of the general belief that an article should claim notability. This includes keeping references of why this is of significant coverage. This includes using a wide variety of references. An article should prove that it is notable or it should not be kept, an nowhere in this article does it show any evidence of significant coverage. I doesn't talk about the responses of the book, it doesn't talk about the coverage, the entire purpose of the article is to inform you of the LoTR world.

I never mentioned splitting these articles into different stubs, by the way. That would be an awful idea.

Also, when did I ever mention tone?MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 01:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the topic may be notable, the way the information was presented is not, and I'm not seeing much content that could be preserved in a future "good" version of the article. Griff (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to review my opinion, and here it is. This AFD really sums up a lot of my thoughts, with equal arguments for both sides. The question is, does the article show notability? I don't believe that this article that this topic (locations in Middle-earth) shows it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Yes, Middle-earth is notable, so is the Lord of the Rings, but is there enough to say that notability is extended to the locations? It feels like we're building a quasi-list, but with no clear criteria for inclusion. @Creol, you mention that "the topic is highly notable and the subject of untold number of books...", but I'm not seeing that, even in the similar articles on enWP (speaking specifically to the geography of Middle-earth). The article as it stands relies purely on primary sources, and while that wouldn't be an issue if the secondary sources existed, I don't know if the secondary sources do exist. @Creol (from 21:13), this seems like a ITSUSEFUL argument, which isn't a valid reason. I respect it, but not every topic that someone might want to know about is notable enough for this Wikipedia, that's why I have an account on Fandom too. So that being said, my comments to delete stand, on notability grounds, although I appreciate the work that has gone into improving the article. Griff (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very much a notable topic and deletion isn't for cleanup. -Djsasso (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the article does it mention that the topic is notable? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 01:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule stating an article must declare notibility. An article can be quick deleted if it doesnt claim one.. Well, it can be a valid reason to tag the article. The admin that looks at the tag does not have to accept the request. Actress Della Reese doesnt really claim notability but to delete her as such would be silly. She is certainly notable no matter what the article says. Not stating it is just a possible justification for quick deletion, not an unavoidable consequence and death knell for an article. Generally speaking articles should be about something many people would be interested in and of a topic where there is adequate information to back up what we say and is the coverage relatively neutral. (notable topic, fair-and-balanced and refs exist) All our fancy rules come down to these 3 basic things. --Creol(talk) 21:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this point of view. However, such an article is different. Della Reese actually is notable because they did some pretty notable things. This article, however, is not necessarily notable at all, and instead something you'd find on a fandom where bits of information is normal. We are not a fandom and we don't write about articles that claim no notability. This is just information and completely void of any world-wide reception. If it had more sources that isn't from Tolkien himself, I would see that there is a lot of coverage and ITSUSEFUL would be a valid reason. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 12:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs.. ok

Fonstad, Karen Wynn. The atlas of Middle-earth (Rev. ed.). London: Grafton. ISBN 9780261102774.
Tolkien, J. R. R. The nature of Middle-earth : late writings on the lands, inhabitants, and metaphysics of Middle-earth (First U.S. ed.). Boston. ISBN 9780358454601.
Harvey, Greg. The origins of Tolkien's middle-earth for dummies. Indianapolis: Wiley Pub. ISBN 9781118068984.
Garth, John. Tolkien's worlds : the places that inspired the writer's imagination. London. ISBN 9780711241275. (debatable)
Sibley, Brian. The maps of Tolkien's Middle-earth. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 9780007169702.
Tolkien, Christopher; Tolkien, John Ronald Reuel (1983). "The Histories of Middle-Earth: The Book of lost tales, part 2". Ballantine Books.
Redfern, Ron. Origins : the evolution of continents, oceans, and life. [Norman, OK]: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 9780806133591. - Not solely on topic but does include info on the geography of Middle-earth.
Day, David. Tolkien : the illustrated encyclopaedia. New York: Simon & Shuster. ISBN 9780684839790.
“Plants of Principal Phyto-Geographic Regions of Middle-Earth.” Mythlore, vol. 20, no. 2 (76), 1994, pp. 8–9, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26812528. Accessed 14 Apr. 2022. - more about the flora, but info exists on where flora exists.
Many a journal article on various topics on Middle-earth (politics and cultural aspects for example) which include info on locations that apply to the text. ie. economics of Gondor would deal with it history and location. These affect the economy, politics or how woman were treated in the location.
pick an issue of "Mallorn: The Journal of the Tolkien Society". journals.tolkiensociety.org.

That a quick look at google books and Jstor. Though honestly, to know where Gondor was, the best source of that information would be the primary source. Other source exist, but they normally aren't as accurate as the one that actually defined the place and unlike asking a person about their history, a book can't change its story later on and make the info questionable. Given Tolkien's flare for painting the entirety of the picture, its hard to believe most later works could even cover it as much as the original ever did. --Creol(talk) 17:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 19:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.