Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maglor

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 no consensus. There are legitimate points being made here, and disagreement over whether the content should be kept, pruned, merged or deleted. But without any consensus for deletion, I will close this now and leave further discussion about pruning or merging to the talk page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maglor[edit]

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

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V verifies its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. This character only has in-universe notability as no sources support real-world notability. AadaamS (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GScholar hits show significant attention to this character, as do GBook hits and popular commentary. There may be Tolkien cruft in need of pruning, but this cookie-cutter nomination with evidence of compliance with WP:BEFORE falls far, far short of making a credible case here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. No compelling reason not to keep. -- RM 13:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Opinions above only assert the existence of relevant sources, but do not cite them, and therefore should be discounted. No indication in the article of the sort of third-party coverage required for notability. Contains only in-universe content, contrary to WP:WAF, another indication of non-notability. Sandstein 16:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House of Finwë#House of Fëanor or perhaps to List of Middle-earth Elves. As with Curufin, basic facts of this character are obviously verifiable in primary and secondary refs, so per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, deletion is inappropriate if there is a viable target. House of Finwë#House of Fëanor seems the best, as it gives the fictional family context. --Mark viking (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Without references asserting real world notability, there is no need for an article at this time. TTN (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 19:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Considering that both Maglor and Maedhros play an important role in the fate of the Silmarils, this article could certainly be improved from its current state. There are plenty of non-Internet sources available discussing Tolkein's work in scholarly fashion. I say "weak", however, because I'm not sure if the sons of Fëanor are really that notable independently. clpo13_(talk) 20:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Fixuture (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plethora of sources available on both Books and Scholar (those were the only 2 I checked). Here are some: this; this; this; this; this; and this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mark Viking. Not every piece of information needs its own article. MSJapan (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2016 (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.