Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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 Speedy keep as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Gondor

Gondor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• 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 no references at all, although it implicitly cites Tolkein's own works, 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 Posthumous editions of unpublished works, so not meet that test, whether or not the editor completes unfinished material.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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Notability_of_articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment C. Tolkien isn't just an editor, as the History of Middle-earth books all contain much commentary on the textual history of the writings he's editing and the evolution of his father's fictional world. Uthanc 08:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Those works are not cited as refs for this article. Do they actually contain non-trivial commentary on the significance of Gondor? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, as do the notes in Unfinished Tales. - jc37 08:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• In any case, per WP:NOTE, "multiple sources are generally preferred" and the test is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis added by me). A compendium by the author's son and posthumous editor does not seem to me to be a remotely independent source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Gondor, not notable? Seriously? [1] [2] If nothing else, the comparaison between Mordor, Gondor, and Rohiran and pre-WWII France, Britain and Nazi Germany is one of the mainstay in the debate about what Tolkien wanted to say about his times, if anything. That the article is written from an in-universe perspective is a problem, but not for deletion. Is there a template for "{{this-article-is-written-from-an-in-universe-perspective-and-therefore-not-encyclopedic}}? If there isn't, there should be.--victor falk 08:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • To establish notability, the article needs references to non-trivial coverage in independent sources, not assertions or google searches which throw up lists of Tolkein's own books. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A large part of The Lord of the Rings is set in this country, much like the Death Star, Coruscant, and Tatooine in the Star Wars films. It's a major, not "minor place in Middle-earth". Off the top of my head, I can say that Gondor was originally "Ond" (from The Return of the Shadow), and it was modeled on Byzantium (from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien). The Gondorians are above other humans due in part to divine blessings which brought longevity and wisdom, but also because they are scholars (contrasted with the people of Rohan who are "unlearned".) They're descendants of the people of Atlantis, which Tolkien calls Númenór. If one were to find these statements in, say, The Atlas of Middle-earth, not written by any Tolkien, would this be accepted? This is what you're looking for, right? Uthanc 08:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. The Atlas may well help verify points of fact, but the fact that place is mentioned in an atlas does not seem to me a point of "non-trivial" coverage. The other points you mention help to explain the interpretation of the places, but the decision on whether to keep the article rests not on interpretation of he stories, but on notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Major location in a major, classic, fantasy trilogy. This is not some minor location, it is the scene for a large part of Return of the King. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Assertion is not proof of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep This seems to be a troll :) See Tolkien research if you need pointers to secondary sources. Colonel Warden 09:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF please. If you have sources, add them to the article so that they an be assessed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep on this and the rest of BrownHairedGirl's AfDs. They are grossly premature. The correct course of action should have been to tag them {{in-universe}} and allow the editors some time to assemble sources and improve the articles. This would be true even if the idea wasn't laughable that Gondor, a major setting in a major work of literature, is "non-notable". TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If you find the idea laughable, then I'm sure you'll have no problem producing the references which establish notability. {{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 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) 10:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I addressed this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Beleriand -- and incidentally, you could have saved a lot of repetition all around by consolidating at least the "minor places" nominations into one discussion. I'll say it again though -- that you didn't bother to exercise the minimal courtesy of explaining your reason for placing the nn tag -- in this case clearly inappropriate on its face -- is the reason it was summarily removed. If you want to know why people think you're trolling, that's why. You have acted like a troll even if that was not your intention. I don't say that as a personal attack, but by way of explaining the reactions you're likely to get. All these articles are supported by a large and active WikiProject, which I guarantee you will not react very kindly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I expected a strong reaction, because I know that Tolkien has many dedicated fans; I would suggest that's one of the reasons why there are so many unreferenced articles with neither assertion nor evidence of notability, because aficionados of a particular subject tend to assume that its notability is axiomatic. That's life, but a cacophony of heated reactions is not relevant either way to the applicability of policies and guidelines.
You're right that I didn't explain my reasons for attaching the {{nn}} and {{primarysources}} tags, because those tags are intended to be self-explanatory through their links to the relevant guidelines. If the editors active in this area are unfamiliar with the guidelines, it would be more productive for them to familiarise themselves with WP:NOTE, WP:FICTION, WP:OR, etc rather than to characterise people as trolls for trying to uphold the policies and guidelines. Frankly, if someone asserting the need for independent sources to establish notability is perceived as a troll by members of a particular wikiproject, then that wikiproject needs to re-examine its culture. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to defend the troll comment, but please don't turn this into an examination of the WikiProject. That discussion should take place first at the talk page. As I said below, I understand that you are shocked at some of the comments you have received, but please don't respond just to those comments. If we all keep calm, I'm sure we can reach agreement on what is needed here. Many of the editors here are familiar with WP:NOTE, WP:FICTION and WP:OR. Many are not members of the WikiProject (some are active editors of the articles without being members of the project). I count three members of the WikiProject and one active editor. I assume the rest are AfD regulars. Carcharoth 13:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Responding to BrownHairedGirl: to be fair, some subjects (not this one) do need more than 7 days to track down sources that imply notability, so "7 days should be enough time" is not always a valid argument, regardless of the amount of notability people are claiming. I am sure that this article can be adequately referenced, but the other three AfDs (minor places in) will probably need more time to discuss whether the whole strategy of merging minor locations is viable and how best to do the merging (which is in itself a long-term project as you've found out at the WikiProject talk page). Would you consider withdrawing those other three AfDs as a gesture of good faith, and to allow people to concentrate their efforts on this article? The minor places articles can then be debated at the WikiProject talk page. Does that seem reasonable? Carcharoth 10:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I have no desire to be disruptive, but so far I am disappointed to see so many people (including, I think ME project members) claiming that the work of Tolkein's son and literary executor is evidence of notability (he clearly fails the independence test). As noted at the project's talk page, it seems to me that the project's current guidelines could unintentionally mislead editors about the importance of demonstrating notability. If there is a consensus amongst members of that project to update their guidelines to emphasise notability, stressing the need for non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, then there would be no need for the deadlines set by AfD ... but so far I see no sign of that.
        If the project can agree to start that work of recasting the guidelines in that direction, and to stop claiming that CT's work is evidence of notability, then I would be ready to withdraw. I don't expect to be online much before monday, but maybe someone would like to send me an email if that condition has been met. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Monday? Oh. I was misled by your reference above to "7 days". I repeated that number, though I should have remembered AfDs are 5 days. I'm away this weekend. Possibly others will work on the article before I get to it, but I would like to have a few days from Monday to work on it. See, this is why discussing things on the talk page to see if you can find someone willing to do the work is better than dragging things to AfD. Getting the balance right between demanding that problems be fixed now, and people promising to improve the article and not doing so (I've been guilty of that in the past) is difficult. What do you suggest should be done? All the articles need work, but I don't have time to work on all four. The project guidelines do need updating, but can we please discuss that over there, rather than here? Carcharoth 13:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
          • An Afd runs for 7 days, which was why I spoke of 7 days to find the refs. Monday is relevant only as the point when I expect to be online again. By all means discuss things at the wikiproject; as above, I will withdraw if the project agrees to start work on updating its guidelines and to start trying to enforce the notability guidelines itself rather than complaining when outsiders raise the point. I don't expect even that updating of guidelines to be complete any time soon, but I will not withdraw the AfD if the project's response to nn/primarysources tags is still to consider them as disruptive or as trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
            • WP:AFD says "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days". I've looked through the AfD again and the troll comment (with a smiley) came from Colonel Warden, who is not a member of the WikiProject. TCC (the active editor I was referring to) only explained to you why your actions could (even jokingly) have seemed like trolling. Could you please apologise for saying that "the project's response to nn/primarysources tags is still to consider them as [...] trolling", and again, I ask you to focus on the article, not the WikiProject. Carcharoth 13:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
              • The troll comment I was referring to was the one from TCC, without a smiley, and my comment was prefixed with an "if". But this is getting silly: you asked me to consider withdrawing so that the wikiproject can discuss the sitaution. That's a reasonable suggestion, but it's also quite reasonable of me to respond that so far I don't see the evidence that the project is ready or willing to do take the issues board. If you prefer to revert to discussing the article, that's fine too; the situation remains that it currently no evidence of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
                • Csernica said "You have acted like a troll even if that was not your intention. I don't say that as a personal attack..." How much clearer can that be? It's not a personal attack. If you want to point out your "if", I'll point out your "still". But you are right, this is getting silly. I will leave this until Monday, when I will endeavour to satisfy your request for independent sources commenting on this topic. Carcharoth 14:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
                  • Please don't play straw man games: I did not accuse anyone of making a personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
                    • For the record, I never said you had accused anyone of making a personal attack. I was commenting on Csernica's comment on whether his comment was a personal attack. Carcharoth 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
                      • Can I comment on that? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
                        • Probably best not to. Recursion probably doesn't trump bad feelings, and things are getting a bit heated on other pages. I hope I've managed to demonstrate some notability and calm things down a bit. Short story is at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Mass tagging (which was followed by mass reversions by IronGargoyle and then by mass reverting by BrownHairedGirl of the reversions - sigh). My follow-up is at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#A start. I guess I'll find out on Sunday (or Monday) whether this has helped or not. Carcharoth 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - This should never have been nominated for deletion. It's a very notable subject!

DarthSidious 10:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

• Comment - one other comment. BrownHairedGirl relied on Wikipedia's article on Christopher Tolkien to describe his work. Relying on Wikipedia articles is always a risky business, and it seems that either the article gave the wrong impression, or is missing key information. BrownHairedGirl quotes the following "secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims" - I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Christopher Tolkien does make interpretive and analytical claims. His role in writing The History of Middle-earth is both literary executor, literary scholar, editor and a son writing about his father's works. Sometimes these roles do conflict, but that does not mean that he should be discarded as a secondary source - rather it means that editors of Wikipedia articles need to take care when referencing him. Carcharoth 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly. As has been discussed before, Christopher Tolkien is a Primary AND Secondary source. When he acts as editor and publishes his father's texts that is 'primary source' material. Likewise, when he speaks about the creation of the maps published in The Lord of the Rings, which he himself drew, he is a 'primary source'. However, when he analyzes at great length (more than half the material in most of his books by my estimation) the meanings, origins, intents, et cetera of his father's work he is clearly acting as a 'secondary source'. An argument could be made that he would not be an 'unbiased' secondary source on some questions, e.g. whether his father's works have racist implications, but on a thousand other questions of meaning and interpretation of the work there is no reason to suspect any 'bias' other than that all researchers have for their own theories. --CBD 11:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you really claiming that as the author's son, editor and literary executor he is in any remotely plausible way "independent of the subject" per WP:NOTE? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Are you really claiming that as the author's son, editor and literary executor we exclude all mention of what he has written? I'm genuinely puzzled here. I think a more reasonable stance would be to agree that references to Christopher Tolkien's work are acceptable, and then to ask for more sources and independent ones over and above that. At the moment, it sounds like you are saying that references to Christopher Tolkien's works are unreliable. Please separate the "reliability" and "independence" arguments. Sources can be reliable without being independent. I understand that you are shocked at some of the comments you have received, but please don't respond just to those comments. If we all keep calm, I'm sure we can reach agreement on what is needed here. Carcharoth 13:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        • No, I am not saying that they are unreliable sources, or that they shouldn't cited. What I am saying is that because they are not independent sources (and in some cases not secondary sources), they are not evidence of notability. Please please please do read WP:FICTION and WP:NOTE; the latter in particular explains the difference between sources for which are acceptable for referencing and sources which establish notability (there are tighter criteria for the latter). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Right. That's a good point, and it is noted. Thanks for that. Cite a page from the books to verify a fact from the book, but cite newspaper coverage of the popularity to verify the notability. Carcharoth 14:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - See comments and references establishing notability under similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Arda nomination above. --CBD 11:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I usually advocate for the deletion of sub-articles relating to fiction, but Gondor is one of the major settings in one of the major works of fiction of the 20th century, not to mention the blockbuster film. Literary sources independent of the Tolkien family undoubtedly exist that discuss Gondor, and the article editors should be given plenty of opportunity to come up with them. Espresso Addict 11:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the universe created by Tolkien and a lot of its locations have been the subject of many, many derivative works and even scientific articles. See for example this [3] scientific article where a link is made between ancient Egypt and locations in Middle Earth (including Gondor). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems like the obvious choice. Major location in the most notable work of fantasy fiction of all time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, articles may need cleanup but Gondor is not some minor location. It is discussed as a symbol of mortality in this article in First Things, it is discussed as being based on Ancient Egypt by Miss Navratilova ( :-) ) in a Czech journal[4], and it is the subject of the chapter "Gondor as Schmittian superpower" in "Studies in Law, Politics and Society"[5]. Gondor, as a location and a country (political entity), clearly has been the subject of considerable scholar attention, and is therefor notable. Fram 13:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Almost every aspect of LotR has been the subject of massive amounts of serious literary, linguistic, and philosophical scholarship; I imagine some serious sources can be found about almost any place in Middle-Earth. Gondor is one of the major locations of the books, and the question of its leadership is a significant plot/theme point. A quick search of Google Scholar and Google Books for Gondor turned up references in a ton of critical analysis works, and I'm sure that spending some time looking over them would turn up even more detailed discussion of Gondor in particular, such as those mentioned above by Fram. Pinball22 13:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If Gondor is non notable in the context of Middle-earth, then maybe we should consider deleting the article on Brussels or Washington D.C.. Mikael GRizzly 14:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Agree with all above. How is this not notable. Bjewiki (Talk) 15:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I am not a Tolkien scholar, but a quick Google Scholar search suffices to reveal some (independent, reliable) sources someone with library access to journal databases could check:
  • MFS Modern Fiction Studies - Volume 50, Number 4, Winter 2004 - Special Issue: J. R. R. Tokien - Guest Editor: Shaun F. D. Hughes (see [6]); in particular, the essay "Tolkien Worldwide" contains a section for which Google snippet reads: "... anarchist," which recognizes the contradictory elements in Tolkien's work: the hierarchical, patriarchal, and political system of Gondor contrasted to the ... ", which seems very promising.
  • N Werber - Geo-and Biopolitics of Middle-earth: A German Reading of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings - New Literary History, 2005 (see [7]) - Ditto: see "... enhanced by the tremendous success of John Ronald Reul Tolkien’s epic ... Their respective realms (pretty Shire, proud Gondor, beautiful Imladris, terrible Mordor ... "
  • JA Ford - The White City: The Lord of the Rings as an Early Medieval Myth of the Restoration of the Roman - Tolkien Studies, 2005 (see [8]) - For instance, "... Tolkien endowed Gondor with the unifying cultural characteristics for which Rome was most famous in the Middle Ages, and he underscored the inclusivity of ..."

And so on and so on. --Goochelaar 15:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, since CBD points out "Numerous independent sources" on the "Arda" AfD (also see above)... I think an article to emulate is Land of Oz. The problem is adding references instead of finding references. Uthanc 16:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• It's snowing in Gondor. Didn't even have to muster the Rohirrim. Clarityfiend 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Gondor is an imporant place in Lord of the R, and has enough notability on it's own to merit an article.Ridernyc 18:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a serious no-brainer. --Gwern (contribs) 18:35 26 October 2007 (GMT)
• keep Sigh... Artw 19:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per BrownHairedGirl. J.R.R.Tolkien is a notable author, but that doesn't make a fictional location within his books worth writing an article about. What next, an article about Narnia? Let me guess, you already have one. Mindraker 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per CBD's excellent reasoning. IronGargoyle 21:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep quite apart from the others, this is so obviously notable as a truly major fictional location that I really wonder at what seems an indiscriminate group of nominations by a respected editor. Perhaps she should withdraw this one--the notability does not depend in the least on anything written by Christopher Tolkien. DGG (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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.