Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Berúthiel

Queen Berúthiel

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Queen Berúthiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As the article itself notes, she is a "is a minor fictional character in J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium". To pre-empt future arguments, this is about her notability as a fictional character, not about her notability as a queen in the imaginary world. There is a brief allusion to her as a figure of legend in The Lord of the Rings. More information is given in a note, only a note, in the chapter on "Istari" in The Unfinished Tales. Much of this article is original research ("cognitive estrangement device") based on the sparse references in Tolkien's works or commentary about how little we know about her. This is extremely trivial. Jack Upland (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Yet again, another "I don't like it" for characters in major British fictional works, with a vast critical literature around them (Radagast has just been AfDed similarly). Yet we would never see an AfD like this for minor Spiderman characters, would we? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

She is a very minor character in LOTR (only mentioned in passing), Andy Dingley. She is mentioned in a note in Unfinished Tales, and I don't think Unfinished Tales is a major British fictional work. I don't understand your emphasis on "British". I think there should be deletion of all fancruft. All minor characters should go.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

And yet here we are, yet again, deleting British fictional characters. (The whole Phillip Reeve canon went recently too.) Yet Marvel or DC and it just never seems to happen. Funny, that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, there have also been deletion discussions for Simpsons characters recently.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for repeating Jack Upland's point, but there have been plenty of AfDs about Marvel and DC characters. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanny (comics), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar (Marvel Comics), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exiles (Red Skull allies) are three examples active at the time of this comment. There are also plenty of non-British fictional characters being nominated for deletion. If you looked through the fictional elements-related AfDs, there are several connected with the Transformer franchise and, as stated above, The Simpsons. So the claim that articles on British fictional characters are being unfairly targeted for deletion over others is simply and clearly untrue. Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Just take a count of how many Tolkien articles are at AfD right now, let alone those recently deleted. And that's Tolkien! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I was just pointing out how the statement, "Yet Marvel or DC and it just never seems to happen", can be seen as false by looking at the current AfDs. A lot of different types of fiction from different nationalities get nominated deletion so I fail to see how this is a particularly helpful line of discussion for why the article should be kept. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

With all of that said, I do not think whether or not a character is minor in their respective medium is a good deletion argument as I would personally put more of an emphasis on whether or not the character has received a significant amount of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I do not know enough about this case, but I always have found that to be a better bar for notability per WP:GNG. Just my own opinion though and I will stop clogging up this AfD with posts. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think this is merely a case of producing a couple of sources. This is a derivative article. To have their own articles, fictional characters are supposed to have independent notability, like Ebenezer Scrooge and Sherlock Holmes. This character (a off-hand mention) doesn't come close to that.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and clarification. I am not familiar enough with this series to comment either way; one of these days though I really should read the books. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, the Queen is only mentioned in one offhand comment in Lord of the Rings, so I wouldn't plough through it on her account.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge to List of Númenóreans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to List of Númenóreans. A very minor character of no great significance or analysis. WP:OTHERAFDSDONTEXIST is not a valid argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Tolkien and his works are of such stature that even his minor characters are notable. In this, he is like Shakespeare, for whom we have articles about such minor characters as the Third Murderer. It is easy to find sources which demonstrate that the character has been noticed such as this work from the Cambridge University Press, "'Who cares about the cats of Queen Beruthiel?' cried one early critic of Tolkien. Tolkien's insight was that most readers do...". Wikipedia is here for its readers, not its would-be critics. Andrew D. (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

So you're citing critics to say that critics don't matter?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to List of Númenóreans. No indication that this passes NFICTION/GNG and can progress beyond PLOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect - Current coverage seems insufficient for a stand alone article. TTN (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep by default, i.e. no reasons exists not to. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)