Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginglith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

Reading through the discussion thread, many of the comments refer not to the article but to the nomination. Those comments which to address the content are about evenly split but still seem to be to be tainted by the controversy of the nomination. I am going to call this a "no concensus" defaulting to keep but without prejudice against a renomination.

Reminder: Any editor can be bold and "merge and redirect" the article. That decision does not destroy history and therefore does not need the extraordinary process of the VfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 21:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ginglith

Is every single fictional person, place and thing from the make believe world of J. R. R. Tolkien considered to be inherently noteworthy? At what point is something so far below the line of notability that it does not merit a redirect? Is there such a line? --GRider\talk 17:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Beleriand. All of this Tolkien stuff should be merged, not deleted. DaveTheRed 17:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you DaveTheRed for your feedback. Are you of the opinion then that all Tolkien-related topics, no matter how minute and insignificant, should at the very least be merged somewhere else? --GRider\talk 18:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • A Merge appears consistent with Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters --Allen3 20:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Greetings Allen3 and thank you for the link. Ginglith is not a minor character; it is a waterway in the world of Middle-earth. To further clarify, are you making a vote on this particular article or just a broad statement regarding minor characters, which this is not? --GRider\talk 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • GRider, if you're interested in finding some sort of consensus on classes of articles, feel free to start a policy consensus discussion. The main VfD page isn't really the right place to do this. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • To answer your question, yes, I believe that all minor information pertaining to fictional universes in which there is a extremely large fanbase (ie. tolkien, Harry potter, pokemon) should be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. DaveTheRed 23:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Chriscf/bad-vfd If you want it deleted, say so. If you want it merged, be bold and do it yourself. Chris 20:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge or keep minute and insignificant Tolkien related topics. Kappa 20:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge Everyking 01:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, more tolkiencruft. ComCat 01:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote. Lacrimosus 02:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; nomination is malformed. —Markaci 2005-03-22 T 03:02 Z
    • Vote is malformed. Grue 17:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nomination is invalid.--Gene_poole 04:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote is invalid. Grue 17:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, malformed nomination. Megan1967 05:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Malformed vote. Grue 17:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as minor concept. Radiant_* 09:48, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't abide Tolkien, but this looks like the best way to cover these rivers as there are so many of them.
  • Delete, useless. Grue 16:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; merge; whatever. —Xezbeth 17:39, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Ginglith_2db8.html"