The result was Keep, with a reminder to actually address the raised points on the basis of the indicated sources and editorial commitment. Tikiwont 16:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable fictional location, fails
WP:FICTION. I have noticed in the last few days that most of the articles in
Category:Middle-earth locations contain no references to secondary sources, and many are entirely unreferenced. This article cites only the editions created by Christopher Tolkein, so I had tagged the article with {{
nn}} and {{
primarysources}}. Those tags were
removed on the grounds that "Christopher Tolkein's work is a secondary source". I believe that this is wrong: as the article
Christopher Tolkien makes clear, he edited collections of his fathers' work, completing some unfinished material, but the valuable work of an editor is not a
secondary source. Per
WP:OR, "secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". Posthumous editions of unpublished works do not meet that test, whether or not the editor completes unfinished material.
I should stress that I have nothing against Tolkien, and I know that his works have amassed a huge cult following even before the release of the blockbuster films. The original works and the films are clearly very notable, as are some major characters and other details but that doesn't mean that every detail of the works is also notable. (See also discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Notability_of_articles.) --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 07:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
reply
{{
in-universe}}
and allow the editors some time to assemble sources and improve the articles.
TCC
(talk)
(contribs) 09:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
reply
{{
in-universe}}
might be appropriate as an additional tag for such articles, but it doesn't cover the notability problems. As stated in the nomination, I would have been happy to leave time for improvement, but the nn/ps tags were removed. However, it is perfectly proper to make an AfD nomination of an article for which notability has not been established. I have nominated only 4 articles, and if these articles are remotely as notable as commentators are claiming at AfD, then the 7 day span of an AfD should be plenty of time to accumulate the minimal referencing required to establish notablity. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 10:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
reply( contribs) 22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, with a reminder to actually address the raised points on the basis of the indicated sources and editorial commitment. Tikiwont 16:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable fictional location, fails
WP:FICTION. I have noticed in the last few days that most of the articles in
Category:Middle-earth locations contain no references to secondary sources, and many are entirely unreferenced. This article cites only the editions created by Christopher Tolkein, so I had tagged the article with {{
nn}} and {{
primarysources}}. Those tags were
removed on the grounds that "Christopher Tolkein's work is a secondary source". I believe that this is wrong: as the article
Christopher Tolkien makes clear, he edited collections of his fathers' work, completing some unfinished material, but the valuable work of an editor is not a
secondary source. Per
WP:OR, "secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". Posthumous editions of unpublished works do not meet that test, whether or not the editor completes unfinished material.
I should stress that I have nothing against Tolkien, and I know that his works have amassed a huge cult following even before the release of the blockbuster films. The original works and the films are clearly very notable, as are some major characters and other details but that doesn't mean that every detail of the works is also notable. (See also discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Notability_of_articles.) --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 07:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
reply
{{
in-universe}}
and allow the editors some time to assemble sources and improve the articles.
TCC
(talk)
(contribs) 09:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
reply
{{
in-universe}}
might be appropriate as an additional tag for such articles, but it doesn't cover the notability problems. As stated in the nomination, I would have been happy to leave time for improvement, but the nn/ps tags were removed. However, it is perfectly proper to make an AfD nomination of an article for which notability has not been established. I have nominated only 4 articles, and if these articles are remotely as notable as commentators are claiming at AfD, then the 7 day span of an AfD should be plenty of time to accumulate the minimal referencing required to establish notablity. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 10:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
reply( contribs) 22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply