Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of Wrath

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 History of Arda#First Age. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

War of Wrath

[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)

I appreciate that fans of this fiction might care about this one, but I couldn't find a single source outside of Tolkien, or paid licensed works. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPLOT and articles based on primary sources can't meet fundamental guidelines about verifiability and original research, let alone proportionality. Third party sources are still the basic level requirement, as seen in the general notability guideline, and there just aren't any that give this more than a passing mention, as a relatively obscure part of Tolkien's more notable fiction. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Arda#First Age, where the War of Wrath is briefly mentioned. We may be able to use a few of the sources there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Chiswick Chap, clear GNG failure. Logical search term though. Hog Farm (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Arda § First Age The War of Wrath is not independently notable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it may be a key plot devicie in the Silmarillion but it is not worth having a stand alone article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, more TOLKIENCRUFT that fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is there any reason why Tolkien Studies should not be a reliable source? If not, I am quite surprised that noone has found secondary sources on this topic in a proper WP:BEFORE search. Book of the Lost Narrator: Rereading the 1977 Silmarillion as a Unified Text addresses the topic directly, in detail, and with analysis. Also directly and in detail, there are The Heroes of Tolkien, A Dictionary of Sources of Tolkien, and The Battles of Tolkien, all of which compare the War of Wrath to mythological sources. There are a number more secondary sources which give plot-summary information. And there's more out there, please let me know if I should look for more to convince anyone. Daranios (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized that my examples two to four were from the same author. So here are two more by different authors: Authoring the Century: J. R. R. Tolkien, the Great War and Modernism and Stolen Language, Cosmic Models: Myth and Mythology in Tolkien both talk about the War of Wrath (putting it together with the Last Alliance and the War of the Ring, but referring to the War of Wrath directly) as a stylistic device, and relate it to the great wars of Tolkien's lifetime. Daranios (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fails WP:GNG, it is better to redirect it to History of Arda § First Age Nika2020 (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail WP:GNG despite having, as far as I can see, direct and detailed treatment in secondary sources as required by WP:GNG? As long as that is not explained, this is a WP:VOTE, which is not the way such a deletion discussion should work. Daranios (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"as far as I can see" - well, why not prove it? What do the sources say? What do they compare the War to, and why? What are its literary, religious and mythological precedents? If the sources are substantial and directly detailed on the topic as you claim, rather than covering far wider areas as their titles and summaries indicate, why don't you add a few cited sentences describing what each source says to the article? David Day's multiple sources that you've linked above are borderline usable (a bit of coverage, just about reliable) but certainly not scholarly. The scholarly sources, and I had a widespread look around at those, seem mainly not very interested in the war itself, mentioning it only in passing. If you can prove this estimate wrong, I'll be delighted, but I'm afraid that the "as far as I can see" level of discussion doesn't cut it for me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have recently started out improving an article in a less clear case. In the middle of it, the deletion discussion was closed as redirect, my effort was ignored. Or, why should not rather the deletion/redirect voters improve it, rather than throw content out, who obviously are more averse to the current status of the article than me? Or, in a less person-directed phrasing: AfD is not for improvement. Rather "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" is explicitly what should be done before a nomination for deletion.

With "as fas as I can see" I meant: I am convinced that WP:GNG is met by the sources. I simply do not claim to know "the Truth" on the matter, and am open to discussing the sources I have uncovered. Sorry, if this was not clear. I am happy to present my opinion in more factual statements, if this is expected in an AfD discussion - though I personally think, opinions are far too often phrased as "facts".

You may be but unfortunately nobody else is.

The fact that David Day's books may not be scholarly is irrelevant with regard to WP:GNG, except if there should by any doubt about their reliability. Is there?

There is some doubt; as I said, he is at best a marginal source, not a scholar. Since Tolkien himself made a (weak) comparison to Ragnarök (saying it was not very much like it), we can believe Day on that much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the doubt? (I am required to "prove" my statements, how is it with that one?) Daranios (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already tried to shortly summarize for each secondary source what it provides. Why don't you look at the original texts yourself, if you are unsatisfied with that? (At least some are freely available at Google Books.) I could quote them, but I think that would be a copyright problem.

As a compromise I'll try to answer your questions in a slightly more extended summary: The War of Wrath is compared to Norse and Christian mythology, to Ragnarök and Armageddon, where Day compares a number of indiviual participants and elements, as well as juxtaposition, between Tolkien's Work and its inspirations. The War of Wrath is compared, to World War I and II and prior major wars. Why: Due to it's influence on Tolkien and his generation. Within Tolkien's work, it is (unsurprisingly) compared to the war of the Last Alliance and the War of the Ring/Battle at the Pellenor Fields. It provides a turning point within the narrative. Again compared to the major wars of the 19th and 20th century, which were similar turning points in real-world history. Despite its importance within Tolkien's narrative, it is not presented by Tolkien as long as one might expect, making way for more personal stories. Within the War's description, it is remarked how it focuses on personages like Eärendil rather than the major powers like Melkor.

If you still want more, I have to look closer again at the sources next week. Do you want me to count sentences to "prove" they are not passing mentions? Would you believe my count? Daranios (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can't tell from that sort of summary what info came from what source, or how much each source had to say, which is crucial. One editor's "count" will not "prove" anything. At this stage I doubt if the !voters will believe anything less than the addition of multiple new paragraphs added to the article and cited separately to reliable scholarly sources, with quotations to demonstrate extensive coverage in each of the sources. Multiple wobbly Day-style sources only weaken your case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a "Keep" opinion has to be proven, "Redirect"/"Delete" opinions don't have to be. Whatever happened to good faith? I am asked to put in a few hours of work to prove my point, while "Redirect"/"Delete" opinions don't even need to consider the new points I have raised? That sounds... assymetrical.

I feel that deletion nominations are done much easier than article improvements. I don't want to believe Wikipedia's supposed to work like that.

Personally, I have decades worth of "homework" from past discussions on improving articles. Still, I would consider putting in this work in this case, but that would take me a few weeks (or more if lot's of new deletion discussions of interest to me spring up). If somehow there was a guarantee that the article would not deleted until then, I would start. Otherwise I have to decline due to negative experience, and hope for recognition by the closer. Daranios (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody here is a volunteer, more or less. I have worked on dozens of Middle-earth articles, including some that people wanted to delete, and found sources for them. I'm afraid I just don't think, from the range of scholarly books and papers that I've seen, that this topic is worth that effort: I think it's marginal but worth a paragraph in the History article. If you, alone of all the editors here, think it is worth a whole article, then you are welcome, indeed invited, to demonstrate the topic's notability. If you don't think that worthwhile either, then, well, join the club. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noone who has formed the opinion "Redirect"/"Delete" has commented on the content of any of the sources I have suggested and described, so I can only assume they have not looked at the sources. And yet when they say "the opinion that these contain worthwhile content is wrong", that should carry weight?

The one exception is you, but content-wise you commented only on the Day sources saying "Day is marginal and doubtful", but without explaining why.

To grab at the last straw, you stated that my extended summary isn't helpful because it doesn't say "what info came from what source, or how much each source had to say". If I told you what of my summary came from which source, would that make any difference to you? I'm thinking not, because you already stated that if I alone told you how much there is in each source, that wouldn't help. And as I said, so far noone else seems able or willing to look at the sources themselves. But if I am mistaken, and can make a difference to you without investing a number of hours, let me know. Daranios (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2020 (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.