Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old South Road

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. The issues of sources was raised, and there exists rough consensus that these sources do not demonstrate notability. Suggestions were made to merge to an article that does not exist, and of course any deleted article can be restored if/when required for merging into another. (E.g. I'm not keeping this "in case" someone cares enough to merge it, but I'll bring it back if someone does the work first.) It should also be noted that *cough* very new accounts with *cough* under ten edits need to presetn comeplling arguments or bring references to a deletion debate if they would like their voice heard. This is not intended as an exclusionary measure, but is simply a pragmatic one, and anyone editor is always welcome to use my talk page if they would like to discuss it further. - brenneman 05:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old South Road

Old South Road (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Non-notable fictional road. While of course Tolkien's works are notable, I fail to see how this particular road from the stories merits its own article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, on the general ground that we already have a very comprehensive and well-indexed collection of articles on all but the most trivial elements of Tolkien's works. However, I appreciate that policy may change; if so, I think we can expect a _very_ large number of Tolkien AfDs in the immediate future. Tevildo 01:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is only an opinion and I fail to see a reason for deletion. It is mentioned repeately in The Lord of the Rings trillogy and other Tolkien works. If you feel that the longest road in Tolkien's fictional Middle Earth should be deleted, then why not delete places that are not mentioned or visited in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, like Eryn Vorn or Andrast. Roaddawg 01:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not-notable. And yes, why not delete places not mentioned or visited in LOTR, like Eryn Vorn or Andrast. Sancho McCann 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, this road joins may other elements of the fictional landscape together. John Vandenberg 04:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and I will vote delete one at a time if every other bit of trivia from LOTR gets nominated. At best this is worth a sentence or two in an article on the Geography of Middle Earth. "We can't delete this piece of trivia on X, because it will open the floodgates" doesn't hold much sway for me.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Why delete this piece? It serves as an important part of Tolkien's work and is mentioned multiple times in his most notable works- Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King, The Silmarillion, and Unfinished Tales. hereiam2 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The reasons to delete it are given above, rhetorical questions generally don't hold much water on AfDs.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it would be kept if it were in the real world, and being part of arguably one of the most well known fictional worlds of all time is enough for me. Jcuk 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per other above. --Fang Aili talk 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - there's no sources cited, and for all the text, it is still jsut a fictional road from Middle Earth. -- Whpq 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with East Road, Old Forest Road and Greenway (Middle-earth) (and any other roads except the Straight Road into Tolkien's "Mt. Olympus") into Roads of Middle-earth, following Rivers of Middle-earth (a continent, not a planet/universe), Rivers of Beleriand (a lost continent) and Rivers of Gondor (a realm). Uthanc 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    If you're citing precedent, it doesn't hold: some of those rivers have separate articles. I wouldn't mind combining some of the roads; Greenway (Middle-earth), for instance, is pretty short and would be better merged with Old South Road. You're right about combining all links into one easily-readble article though (Roads of Middle-earth). --Fang Aili talk 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think this is a very good idea. I would far prefer these sorts of articles than a broken out series of them - those rivers that have their own articles ought to be merged as well, in my humble opinion. It seems like a good compromise between people who insist on having this info on wikipedia and people who insist that it shouldn't comprise dozens of articles.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • "some of those rivers have separate articles" - okay, my mistake. About merging the rest of the rivers, I'll bring this up to the project members. Uthanc 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - "why not delete places not mentioned or visited in LOTR, like Eryn Vorn or Andrast." Well, they're in Tolkien's other writings. Uthanc 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The road and its users and uses are described in full detail in the Tolkien trilogy. The road has no other reality. I do not see the need for or purpose of the article.--Anthony.bradbury 23:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Roads of Middle-earth per Uthanc. Tevildo 23:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. Size of the article shows that something can be said about it, and all of this is sourceable in Tolkien's writings. I could accept a merge into a comprehensive 'Roads of Middle-Earth' article as well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The road was important enough for Tolkien to mention multiple times and it is a major feature of his Middle-Earth. The more information in an encyclopedia the better. Milton 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless multiple non-trivial third party sources can be provided. Yamaguchi先生 03:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP is not Tolkien Gateway or lotr.wikia.com. The above keep arguements would be valid at an afd at those wikis, but does anyone have a keep argument based in Wikipedia policy? How about delete per WP:NOT - Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot.. WP:FICTION states: Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." I'd be willing to reconsider if a secondary source is presented establishing the subject's impact or historical significance (in this world, of course). The closing admin doesn't just count votes, right? --maclean 03:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established outside of the book itself and zero reliable sources. Naconkantari 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As this is really only one of two roads in middle earth (north-south and east-west), there is nothing really to merge it into. In the general spirit of user:Tevildo above, if this is deleted all Tolkien geographical elements must be as well- this is of the same strand of material. I see no AfDs on other geographical items from Tolkien's work (although I checked only those linking out of this article and the two mentioned above, (Eryn Varn, Andrast, etc.)- why is this one the only item listed? It just seems rather pointless to delete information that people will read, as it has obviously generated some interest as per this debate. Not to mention the fact that notability does not have to be established outside of the book itself based on the mulititude of other trivial articles concerning LOTR. Grainofsalt 03:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion (again), arguments of this type are most troubling because they acknowledge how problematic the article is but still suggest keeping it because altering it in any way would unleash some sort of biblically proportioned wave of subsequent AfDs, or at the very least, merges and redirects. Any one article being nominated is, in and of itself, automatically justification to keep them all, in a rather odd bit of circular logic (please note that I'm accusing you of bad faith in any way). Perhaps the LOTR/Tolkien project people should spend some much-needed and appreciated effort consolidating trivia into a truly well-written series of parent article instead of presiding over an endless spinning out of non-notable bits and pieces.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment To answer the question two comments above "why is this one the only item listed?", it is the only one listed (of the Tolkien universe) because it is the only one that caught my eye during new page patrol. I have neither time to, nor interest in, seeking out other Tolkien related articles for scrutiny at the juncture. Not that this matters, of course. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:POKEMON and the fact that this is the longest road in the LOTR universe. MPS 04:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Greenway (Middle-earth) which is the same road. Note that third party, reliable sources actually do exist for this topic. It is covered in The Complete Guide to Middle-earth by Robert Foster ( ISBN 0-345-32436-6 ) where the main article is North Road and probably in Karen Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth though I can't put my hands on that at the moment. Eluchil404 06:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Greenway (Middle-earth) should be merged into Old South Road as the Greenway is only a portion of the much larger Old South Road. Regardless, I believe merging of the two roads is the best solution.--hereiam2 07:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply It's not clear to me what the ultimate name should be. As I said, Foster treats North Road as the primary name and says that Old South Road only applies to the stretch of it between Tharbad and Bree. Thus equating it with the Greenway. In any event, merging, renaming, or moving don't require an AfD so that discussion can be differed to project or Talk pages. Eluchil404 07:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for complete lack of third-party sourcing establishing notability. Until I see that, this (to me) is just a fictional road and nothing more. -- Kicking222 14:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: Wikipedia is not paper. Peter Grey 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe that there are quite a few third party Tolkien sources that mention this item and many more items of smaller importance...for example:

John Howe & Brian Sibley's The Guide to Tolkien's Middle-earth ISBN:0061055069

Karen Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth

Robert Foster's The Complete Guide to Middle-earth ISBN:0345324366

Greg & Tim Hildebrandt's Tolkien's World from A-Z:The Complete Reference Guide to Middle-earth ISBN:0739432974--Hobgarth 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Comment I added the previously mentioned third-party references to the page. This should solve that problem, at least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobgarth (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
I must say, and I'm sure people will disagree, that mentions in "guides to middle earth" and fan-produced publications do not make the topic any more notable. It is still a sub-trivial article than should be merged into something larger. I think by now I need to just accept that there will always be parallel wikipedias for topics that have large computer-based fan followings and just give up on trying to participate in these topics.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Hobgarth summed it up nicely. Multiple sources, which are unfairly trivialized by the above comment. I know that at least one of those books above has an article of its own. Irongargoyle 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The guides listed above by Hobgarth do not give any encyclopedic context whatsoever, nor has anyone bothered to cite the page number(s) which explicitly mention this road. RFerreira 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer we not give credence to these sources by asking for more specific citations, they are explicitly meant to be concordances that present entries on everything in Tolkien's work and as such do not seem to me to establish notability. No one is questioning whether this road "exists" in Tolkien's work.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That may well be, but as it is right now, this is a useless list of book titles and ISBNs. RFerreira 20:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Okay The Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction. Therefore, there is not going to be any information on how the Old South Road applies to the contemporary world. The point of the article is to show the massive amount of Tolkien's work (stories, places, people, events) that are all connected by this major road. Each of the sources listed above does just that. I have read all of the entries on this page and it seems to me that there are some people who will never be satisfied no matter the justification. Articles such as this one (and this seems to be much more complete and profound than the works I am referring to) exist throughout Wikipedia and are there to enhance the knowledge of an individual about a specific topic. This is an encyclopedia. Everyone holds different interests, and the point of Wikipedia is to provide a place for everyone to gain more knowledge about a specific topic, fictional or non-fiction. --User:Lossoth 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to major article about the roads of Middle-Earth, or delete. I'm a Tolkien fan, but this is fancruft. We don't have to describe everything that is mentioned in LotR or his other writings in detail, there are other venues for this. A generic article may be helpful, but that's all that is needed. This is a solution that can be used for many of the Tolkien articles, by the way: if Culumalda does need a mention (which is highly debatable in itself), surely it can be done in a larger article on the trees of Middle-Earth? Fram 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep - One of two main roads in LOTR. Notable aspect of LOTR. - Peregrine Fisher 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete LOTR fancruft at its worst. Ok, maybe no worst, but pretty low. We don't need these LOTR forks on every bit of minutiae that LOTR fans can think up. Eusebeus 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well it may not be interesting to everyone, but there is obviously a high percentage of people out there who read these articles. Information is boundless and to put as much as possible on wikipedia is definately the way to go. Remember, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PAPER! --User:Wofford 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge per Matthew Brown. It beats a pokemon for longevity.Garrie 05:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
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.