Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imrahil

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 Dol Amroth. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imrahil[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor character - no indication given of external significance. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dol Amroth which has potential of being expanded with real-life references. E.g. some spires in the Cascade Mountains have been named after peaks from Lord of the Rings, including one "Dol Amroth" [1]. De728631 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being covered in detail in works such as The Complete Tolkien Companion and Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia. Warden (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the topic is not covered in detail, the refs you found only contain trivial mentions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like De's suggestion of a redirect to Dol Amroth (perhaps a selective merge); the character is not significant and you can tell in the plot summary because it's all trivial stuff, but although unimportant as a character he can be discussed with Tolkien's geography/history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favour of keeping the article online on the grounds of WikiMedia's charter to (b) share information and (b) make information available to the masses. I think a debate about the merit of the article itself is not warranted, as long as it follows WikiMedia's guidelines and includes verifiable references. By debating the merit of the article, we are opening up a can of worms and possibly a debate with no end. The fact is that information was put online and, as long as at least one person finds it useful and it is within WikiMedia's guidelines, then it should not be subject to deletion. Arentol Gellor (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem, this article doesn't follow Wikipedia's policies such as WP:NOTPLOT and general notability guideline. Articles don't just have to be verifiable, they have to be notable. Unfortunately for you, there are things which Wikipedia is not, such as an indiscriminate collection of information, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". That the information was "put online" and "is of interest for at least one person" is not a valid reason to circumvent Wikipedia's policies. On the contrary, debate on all article merit is entirely warranted, and "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies" (WP:AFDFORMAT). You don't give policy-based reasons to keep this article, so your comment is likely to be ignored.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Dol Amroth per users De728631 and Roscelese, no significant coverage can be found for the topic, which thus doesn't meet WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.