Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraz's Castle

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. Sandstein 10:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miraz's Castle[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)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( And given that this article is one of the most obvious failures at our policies, I feel deprodding this is a clear WP:POINT violation. (Yes, it can be deprodded per policy, and it is a clear waste of time to discuss this here). Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No evidence of real-world significance, and I don't anticipate any being turned up. That we would even need to discuss this one leads me to wonder whether the editor who deprodded the article even looked at it first.DonIago (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minor fictional location, with virtually no significant coverage in reliable sources using either of the names given in the article. Its so non-notable that even this stub of an article barely talks about the location itself, with more time spent discussing characters than the castle. Its not even worth a redirect, as "Miraz's castle" is just a descriptor for it after he became its ruler, and not an actual proper name for the place. Rorshacma (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is easy to find detailed coverage of the topic such as details of the real-world locations which have been used for the various adaptions, including Pembroke Castle and Château de Pierrefonds. The place has an entry in The A-Z of C. S. Lewis: An Encyclopaedia of His Life, Thought, and Writings and this is primae facie evidence of the topic's encyclopaedic nature. The nomination's cookie-cutter claims are thus refuted and shown to be false. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unconvinced that "In this adaptation, this real-world location is used to portray Mraz's castle" is evidence that the fictional castle itself is notable. Similarly, the castle being discussed in a single allegedly-encyclopedic book about Lewis is unremarkable because it would be more remarkable if it wasn't discussed in such a work (that said, I'd be curious to review the specific text). Given the ease with which you claim detailed coverage can be found, can you provide any independent or at least additional sources that discuss it in detail? DonIago (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, I can. For example, see The Mother of all Miniatures in which we learn that a replica of the castle was "largest single piece ever constructed" by the Weta Workshop. We see from this that the nomination and its supporters are making false claims and assumptions without doing the work required by WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Were this article more fully fleshed-out I would say that that might be an interesting point of trivia. As-is, I don't see that point of trivia as being a reason to retain the article. If you feel the article should be kept, might I suggest that you add this information into the article to better demonstrate its potential? DonIago (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page has existed for 11 years without sourcing. The fact that there is one discussion of what place was used for it in a film, and one other source somewhere that gives it some discussion is not worth noting. This is not a place that has gotten significant sustained discussion in multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a couple of passing mentions have been dug up, but nothing that would help this fictional location pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking significant coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:06, 15 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.