Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of kings 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 delete. As it was highlighted in the discussion, these lists rely on primary sources only. A merge was suggested, which is a reasonable option, though List of Middle-earth characters is only a directory of names. If anyone wants to try merging all these, I will be happy to provide the content. Tone 18:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of kings of Gondor[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This list is the very definition of WP:Trivia and WP:Fancruft; I believe it's a remnant from a decade ago when Wikipedia had a lot more fancrufty lists and articles, some of which were even created by a younger me. A lot of that stuff has been excised over the years. Most of these names aren't even actual characters in any of the books. Interested fans can find this information (and more) at [1][2]; these franchise-specific wikis have few restrictions on content as compared to Wikipedia's stricter guidelines. — TAnthony^Talk 16:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "very definition" of these cookie-cutter nominations is quite false as it appears that the nominator hasn't read WP:Trivia, which doesn't actually provide carte blanche to delete anything which the nominator finds trivial. That guideline is actually about sections of articles which lack a particular focus. And WP:Fancruft is an essay which is just more opinion. So, the relevant link for this is WP:ITSCRUFT, which is an argument to avoid at AfD. Our actual deletion policies include WP:ATD; ; WP:CENSOR; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. These indicate that we should retain these pages. Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There's no such thing as Article for redirect or Article for merge discussions, so here we are, where redirecting or merging are acceptable results of an AfD as opposed to actual deletion. Thanks for listing relevant policies but you forgot about WP:GNG, which, among other things, demands that a topic have significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be plenty of coverage about LOTR itself, but not so much about the anecdotal Elf kings and such we're dealing with here. Preservation is fine but not when a list doesn't meet the basic criteria for notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen is only one AfD of many I have seen that have eliminated extensive lists and family trees of less-than-notable fictional characters.— TAnthony^Talk 18:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these policies are carte blanche to keep anything and everything indefinitely. Unclear how your cookie-cutter links make this censorship. Not being paper does not mean we must reflexively keep WP:EVERYTHING. ATD says to look at improvements or alternatives (not that deletion is forbidden), none of which you have proposed - instead we could have a merge of the kings articles into an expanded List of Middle-earth characters or a single subpage, but this level of detail is quite the fancruft not covered in third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Middle-earth characters. Squeeps 10 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of coverage even with little sourcing is justified for real world rulers (although I would point out we have less for many rulers of pre-unification kingdom of places in Nepal, or for the rulers of Kashmir then we have here for a fictional place), it is not justified for background characters most of whom only show up fleetingly in the plot of a book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, 1st, as with many lists, retain only the names that are notable ie. have their own wikiarticle, oh look! it is now tiny and can easily be accommodated in a section at Gondor, so delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous.

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.