Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carcharoth: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:37, 7 January 2020

Carcharoth

[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)

Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG/WP:PLOT. Non-notable fictional character (animal). Does not have an entry in Tolkien Encyclopedia. Prod declined by User:Carcharoth with rationale left at Talk:Carcharoth#Contesting_proposed_deletion, in essence pointing to mentions of the beast in The Road to Middle-Earth and Tolkien the Medievalist. I can't access the latter (no view on Google Books), but the former seems to mention the beast only in passing, and the beast itself is not subject to analysis. If it is compared to Mabinogion or such in passing, that this may merit a note in those articles, but as I am not seeing as much as a single paragraph about Carcharoth itself, I am nonetheless taking this here. I am prepared to withdraw this IF evidence is shown (preferably in form of quotations) that this beast itself received more than a mention in passing. PS. I accessed Tolkien the Medievalist. (thanks to Library Genesis) and it is also a mention in passing, an off-hand comparison. I am sorry, but I don't think two passing mentions in scholarly work (maybe 1-2 sentences long in each work) amount to GNG requirement of 'significant' coverage and analysis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 30 December 2019 (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} 10:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not featured in Tolkien's major works.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Silmarillion is a major work. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. The Silmarillion was never even brought to publication by Tolkien, and was throughly panned by the critics. It is an unreadable work in which stick figures get up and run around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, your feelings on the matter are clear, but there is no need to be rude and insulting. Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ah, the "Red Maw" – a fitting name for an ever-hungry beast. This subject has an entry in Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia and so its encyclopedic nature is clear. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how much effort has gone into the study of Tolkien's legendarium, I'd be fairly surprised if this character wasn't notable; but if, indeed, it's correct that there aren't independent sources, then the correct outcome would be to redirect to Silmarils where the character is briefly discussed. I can't see any policy basis for a "delete" outcome.—S Marshall T/C 11:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia is not the measure of notability. The fact that the photo here has nothing to do with Carcharoth is a clear sign of a lack of notability. Passing mentions in broad ranging works are not enough to justify an article on a fictional character. Carcharoth lacks the indepth secondary analysis we need to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Silmarils#Fictional history There is not enough in-depth material to justify a separate article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If delete, then do at least keep the content with appropriate redirection, disambiguation or the like as suggested in the guidelines. The point of keeping or not, is not treating the guidelines according to arbitrary interpretation or personal critical standards, but serving the reader. Nor is the question of comparison with other bodies of legend relevant, such as the Fenris story. A reader wanting to know who or what Carcharoth was or why interesting or not (which was why I looked it up in the first place) is not best served by being left in doubt as to its source and significance. Nor is the article is large enough to justify its deletion on the grounds of economy. And if the idea is to scale the rank of the entry according to its perceived notability, then that becomes a false economy, because a redirection to a section of article in a larger article is no less obtrusive than a linked article, and less helpful to the reader. The fact that it is a minor character, rarely referred to, is not relevant. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such minor characters in other bodies of legend and fiction, that appear in references and reference works, with little more detail than "son of X" or "slayer of Y" or the like; they in particular can otherwise cost the user great effort to find and comprehend in context. Compare the current entry for Ancalagon the Black. Tucking it away under named dragons is no service; it would be better in its own small article, with a link from that article. Deletion of such entries is not and cannot in good sense or good faith be the default option. The only basis for their exclusion could be false or inaccurate content, not paucity of reference. JonRichfield (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Fails WP:GNG. There is no duty to cover every single minor character in every series. There are fan wikis out there for people to find such information. TTN (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - copying over here the bits of my talk page comment that Piotrus did not mention:
I would hope that any useful content would be merged elsewhere. There is still the potential to use academic sources in many of the Tolkien in-universe articles, with lots of books on the topic and 15 years and counting of articles in the journal Tolkien Studies (among others). It is not easy to do, and getting the balance right between summary style and detail is not easy, but I would hope that deletions would not preclude future work on these topics.
It may be easier to organise the content in a different way, certainly a less 'in-universe' style, but there are academic sources out there (e.g. The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion & Guide and The Mirror Crack'd: Fear and Horror in JRR Tolkien's Major Works, with a wider mention of Tolkien's wolves in The History of the Hobbit). The best way to treat the material that concerns Carcharoth would probably be to expand the relevant elements of the article Beren and Lúthien, so I will formally suggest a redirect there. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beren and Lúthien. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Nerd-lore, this is minor, trivial stuff one would find on a Wikia page. ValarianB (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's argument is thoroughly misinformed; for example, the mistitled "Tolkien Encyclopedia" is not an encycopedia at all, but a collection of critical essays arranged alphabetically, with no pretense beyond the title of encyclopedic intent. More important, the volume does provide critical commentary on the Carcharoth character, with one essayist tracing roots of the character to Dante, a second noting parallels to Eddic legends and the Fenris Wolf. Another source notes the similarities between Tolkien's presentation of Carcharoth as a companion to Morgoth to imagery of Odin's wolves Geri and Freki. There is an extensive body of substantive Tolkien criticism out there, both descriptive and analytic; Carcharoth alone shows more than one hundred GScholar hits, and a significantly larger number of GBooks hits, both incomplete measures. The development of the character is addressed at some length in both Tolkien fils's History of Middle Esrth and related works as well as Ratliff's history of The Hobbit. We may have a claque of editors here who are hostile to coverage of fiction and routinely dismiss the many available sources out of hand, but such opinions, not only ungrounded in but defiant of our actual deletion policy, should carry little or no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 *'''Delete''' Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia is not the measure of notability. The fact that the photo here has nothing to do with Carcharoth is a clear sign of a lack of notability. Passing mentions in broad ranging works are not enough to justify an article on a fictional character. Carcharoth lacks the indepth secondary analysis we need to justify a stand alone article.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 13:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 *'''Redirect to [[Silmarils#Fictional history]]''' [[Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline|There is not enough in-depth material to justify a separate article.]] &#8213;[[User:Susmuffin|<span style="color:#8B008B;">'''''Susmuffin'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Susmuffin|<sup><span style="color:#8B008B;">'''''Talk'''''</span></sup>]] 17:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' If delete, then do at least keep the content with appropriate redirection, disambiguation or the like as suggested in the guidelines. The point of keeping or not, is not treating the guidelines according to arbitrary interpretation or personal critical standards, but serving the reader. Nor is the question of comparison with other bodies of legend relevant, such as the Fenris story. A reader wanting to know who or what Carcharoth was or why interesting or not (which was why I looked it up in the first place) is not best served by being left in doubt as to its source and significance. Nor is the article is large enough to justify its deletion on the grounds of economy. And if the idea is to scale the rank of the entry according to its perceived notability, then that becomes a false economy, because a redirection to a section of article in a larger article is no less obtrusive than a linked article, and less helpful to the reader. The fact that it is a minor character, rarely referred to, is not relevant. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such minor characters in other bodies of legend and fiction, that appear in references and reference works, with little more detail than "son of X" or "slayer of Y" or the like; they in particular can otherwise cost the user great effort to find and comprehend in context. Compare the current entry for [[Ancalogon the Black]]. Tucking it away under named dragons is no service; it would be better in its own small article, with a link from that article. Deletion of such entries is not and cannot in good sense or good faith be the default option. The only basis for their exclusion could be false or inaccurate content, not paucity of reference. [[User:JonRichfield|JonRichfield]] ([[User talk:JonRichfield|talk]]) 15:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' If delete, then do at least keep the content with appropriate redirection, disambiguation or the like as suggested in the guidelines. The point of keeping or not, is not treating the guidelines according to arbitrary interpretation or personal critical standards, but serving the reader. Nor is the question of comparison with other bodies of legend relevant, such as the Fenris story. A reader wanting to know who or what Carcharoth was or why interesting or not (which was why I looked it up in the first place) is not best served by being left in doubt as to its source and significance. Nor is the article is large enough to justify its deletion on the grounds of economy. And if the idea is to scale the rank of the entry according to its perceived notability, then that becomes a false economy, because a redirection to a section of article in a larger article is no less obtrusive than a linked article, and less helpful to the reader. The fact that it is a minor character, rarely referred to, is not relevant. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such minor characters in other bodies of legend and fiction, that appear in references and reference works, with little more detail than "son of X" or "slayer of Y" or the like; they in particular can otherwise cost the user great effort to find and comprehend in context. Compare the current entry for [[Ancalagon the Black]]. Tucking it away under named dragons is no service; it would be better in its own small article, with a link from that article. Deletion of such entries is not and cannot in good sense or good faith be the default option. The only basis for their exclusion could be false or inaccurate content, not paucity of reference. [[User:JonRichfield|JonRichfield]] ([[User talk:JonRichfield|talk]]) 15:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' or redirect. Fails [[WP:GNG]]. There is no duty to cover every single minor character in every series. There are fan wikis out there for people to find such information. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 12:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' - copying over here the bits of my talk page comment that Piotrus did not mention: <blockquote>I would hope that any useful content would be merged elsewhere. There is still the potential to use academic sources in many of the Tolkien in-universe articles, with lots of books on the topic and 15 years and counting of articles in the journal ''[[Tolkien Studies]]'' (among others). It is not easy to do, and getting the balance right between summary style and detail is not easy, but I would hope that deletions would not preclude future work on these topics. </blockquote> It may be easier to organise the content in a different way, certainly a less 'in-universe' style, but there are academic sources out there (e.g. ''The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion & Guide'' and ''The Mirror Crack'd: Fear and Horror in JRR Tolkien's Major Works'', with a wider mention of Tolkien's wolves in ''The History of the Hobbit''). The best way to treat the material that concerns Carcharoth would probably be to expand the relevant elements of the article [[Beren and Lúthien]], so I will formally suggest a redirect there. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 13:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Redirect''' to [[Beren and Lúthien]]. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 13:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Redirect''' per above. Nerd-lore, this is minor, trivial stuff one would find on a Wikia page. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 14:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
+*'''Keep'''. The nominator's argument is thoroughly misinformed; for example, the mistitled "Tolkien Encyclopedia" is not an encycopedia at all, but a collection of critical essays arranged alphabetically, with no pretense beyond the title of encyclopedic intent. More important, the volume does provide critical commentary on the Carcharoth character, with one essayist tracing roots of the character to Dante, a second noting parallels to Eddic legends and the Fenris Wolf. Another source notes the similarities between Tolkien's presentation of Carcharoth as a companion to Morgoth to imagery of Odin's wolves Geri and Freki. There is an extensive body of substantive Tolkien criticism out there, both descriptive and analytic; Carcharoth alone shows more than one hundred GScholar hits, and a significantly larger number of GBooks hits, both incomplete measures. The development of the character is addressed at some length in both Tolkien fils's ''History of Middle Esrth'' and related works as well as Ratliff's history of ''The Hobbit''. We may have a claque of editors here who are hostile to coverage of fiction and routinely dismiss the many available sources out of hand, but such opinions, not only ungrounded in but defiant of our actual deletion policy, should carry little or no weight. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo).  Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong!]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 15:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)