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 merge to Kings of Númenor. Spartaz Humbug! 02:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Elros

Elros (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to establish real-world notability through reliable, third-party sources. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Also, please keep WP:NOTJUSTPLOT in mind. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 05:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, unless a suitable place to merge and/or redirect it to can be found. Harry Blue5 ( talk • contribs) 12:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. No need to keep this. – BuickCentury Driver 12:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is referenced in multiple real-world third-party sources. Why do you not consider it notable? Francis Bond ( talk) 13:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The references you refer to are works by Tolkien expanding the (back)story and not about real world impact. Thus, they fail to adequately show notability; they only prove the assertions of in-universe age and relationships of the character. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply
My reading of the notability guidelines is that sources do not actually have to say "This is notable for this reason". The fact that something is discussed in multiple external sources is evidence that it is notable. In particular, the History of Middle Earth series is a post-posthumously produced series because of the great real-world interest in these fictional subjects. I also added a clearly secondary source. Francis Bond ( talk) 14:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

"...while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not.

Which means that although there may be a huge interest in the series, it is not necessarily Elros everyone is looking for. Elros would have to be the subject of the writing, and not only in the context of The Lord of the Rings. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Such as? Are they reliable sources? Fan sites and magazines aren't acceptable. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Such as the numerous books listed in the search link at the head of this discussion. Colonel Warden ( talk) 23:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Of those on the first page, four are not related to LoR, one may be but I cannot read the language it is in, and the rest are mainly story (one is not even independent) or passing references. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • There are satisfactory sources on that and other pages - sections named like our topic with substantial content. Colonel Warden ( talk) 23:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps you could link to one (or more, preferably) to prove your point? 00:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The link appears above. What you need to be looking at is WP:BEFORE which indicates our expectation that nominators will review the literature for a topic before coming here. Colonel Warden ( talk) 00:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I have reviewed the stuff above (as noted in my above comment

"Of those on the first page, four are not related to LoR, one may be but I cannot read the language it is in, and the rest are mainly story (one is not even independent) or passing references. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)"

As such, none of the sources I've viewed can be used to demonstrate notability. You say that good sources exist, so I am asking you to show me an example. I am well aware of WP:BEFORE, and showed that I did my homework in the above-quoted comment. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 05:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The Google books link indicates that there are "about 3,080 results" and so stopping after the first page is not doing one's homework with due diligence. When one does more it is evident that the topic is covered in detail by multiple good sources including:
  1. Tolkien: the illustrated encyclopedia
  2. The complete Tolkien companion
  3. The mythology of Middle-earth
  4. Understanding the Lord of the Rings
  5. The Lord of the Rings Comprehension Guide
  6. The individuated hobbit: Jung, Tolkien, and the archetypes of Middle-Earth
  7. JRR Tolkien companion & guide
  8. The world of the rings: language, religion, and adventure in Tolkien
  9. Tolkien, new critical perspectives
  10. An Introduction to Elvish
  11. The evolution of Tolkien's mythology
  12. The History of The Hobbit
  13. Secret fire: the spiritual vision of J.R.R. Tolkien
  14. Arda reconstructed: the creation of the published Silmarillion
  15. Cyclopedia of literary characters
  16. Splintered light: logos and language in Tolkien's world
Colonel Warden ( talk) 09:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Please note that WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY requires actual proof of notability to be be supplied when asked for. I have asked two times so far for unambiguous proof, and so far all that has been given is titles of books that may or may not be passing references or fail WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. Please give a direct link to any books that support your position, such as was done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Dedalus. The burden is to prove notability once questioned, not the lack of it. Just being written about in a passing reference is not enough. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • No, WP:NRVE states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation." You now have a good reading list - sources whose contents satisfy me. You did not wish to search thoroughly and now you do not wish to read for yourself. That's not my problem. The Simon Dedalus case indicates that you are making nominations of notable literary characters without observing WP:BEFORE. Our deletion policy states emphatically, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". All such cases of literary characters may be resolved by normal editing because there is always the option of merging the content into our article about the work itself. Readers who search for distinctive search terms such as Elros or Simon Dedalus should never be left empty-handed because we will always have something suitable to show them. Deletion is therefore always inappropriate. Colonel Warden ( talk) 10:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • WP:NRVE states, regarding this issue:

"However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."

If the books are available for reading on Google books, it would be nice to have a direct citation to show notability. Otherwise, I think we should just let other editors weigh in. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I specified the sources by listing their titles. You wanted reliable third-party sources that were not fan sites or magazines and now you have them. Colonel Warden ( talk) 10:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment These are Google Books links from the list by Colonel Warden above, some of which are quite crucial to the understanding of Tolkien's legendarium and its creation:
  1. Tolkien: the illustrated encyclopedia: At least one paragraph dealing with Elros in a treatment on the kings of Númenor, and a full entry on "Elrond and Elros"
  2. The Tolkien Companion: one dedicated chapter "Elros Tar-Minyatur" (p. 146) and 19 more hits within the book
  3. The mythology of Middle-earth: "Two of the most important descendants of Elves in the history of Middle-earth were Elrond Halfelven,... and his brother Elros" (p. 116)
  4. Understanding the Lord of the Rings: mentioned in passing in then genealogy of Aragorn and Arwen (p. 127)
  5. The Lord of the Rings Comprehension Guide: mentioned in passing (p. 207)
  6. The individuated Hobbit: two times mentioned in passing, one illustration "Elrond and Elros"
  7. JRR Tolkien companion & guide: 3 times mentioned in passing
  8. The world of the rings: language, religion, and adventure in Tolkien: two times mentioned in passing
  9. Tolkien, new critical perspectives: Elros mentioned in a section on etymology
  10. An Introduction to Elvish: etymology of the name explained
  11. The evolution of Tolkien's mythology:p. 142 explains how Elros is important for Tolkien's concept of the internal history of Middle-earth: "Tolkien further explains that the blood of Elves being mingled with that of Men was Illúvatar's "Divine Plan" to enrich humanity. ... Elros, ...is the sole Half-Elven..." Here ends the snippet but the text obviously points out the lineage of Elros -> Aragorn.
  12. The History of The Hobbit: p. 125 states that Elrond in The Hobbit was probably created earlier by Tolkien than his brother Elros.
  13. Secret fire: the spiritual vision of J.R.R. Tolkien: mentioned in passing
  14. Arda reconstructed: the creation of the published Silmarillion: nothing on Elros proper, only the name of the family tree "The Line of Elros" from The Silmarillion
  15. Cyclopedia of literary characters II, vol. 4: mentioned in passing
  16. Splintered light: logos and language in Tolkien's world: etymology again.
I think all this, especially the underlined references add up to some notability after all. De728631 ( talk) 23:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I'm worried that many of these are not applicable under WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. For example, the first link seems to be plot info. This and this seem to point to merger, as information on the writing of a character is probably not enough to prove notability. Thanks for the links, by the way. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • When applied to suitability for a standalone article, WP:NOTJUSTPLOT means that some reliable secondary sources should offer coverage other than plot summary, enough to make the article more than a plot summary; this does not imply that only sources which offer real world perspectives are acceptable for purposes of assessing notability or suitability for a standalone article. Cenarium ( talk) 20:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and/or redirect Only one of the sources above appears to have any real world content on Elros. As De728631 says, most of them are passing references. Of the underlined ones:
1. is an in-universe summary (see link here as that given is for 2.)
2. is a brief in-universe who's who entry, and a passing mention as Elrond's brother
3. Reads as in-universe commentary ("Two of the most important descendants of Elves in the history of Middle-earth were...") and is mainly about Elrond (listed 9 times) not Elros, listed only once as Elrond's brother.
11 does have some content on the role Elros plays and how he was added to the backstory (although his name still only comes up 4 times!). This I think does count as relevant material, but there doesn't seem to be very much here about Elros himself, as opposed to the idea of the descent of the Kings of the Numenoreans from Elvish and Human stock.
12 is about The Hobbit and as the name only appears on one page, it seems likely that the only information conveyed is that in the snippet, that Elros didn't exist when The Hobbit was written. This is well down in the weeds!

An out of universe article on Elros would say that he was Elrond's brother and the ancestor of the Numenorean kings, that he was added to the mythology relatively late on and was part of Tolkien's concept of the mingling of Elven and human blood, and that the second element of his name relates to sea-foam. That would make for a very short article, and I think could be covered elsewhere. 4u1e ( talk) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Merge in Kings of Númenor. I couldn't find enough evidence that the character is suitable for a standalone article, but the topic is perfectly suitable for merging in Kings of Númenor (I'll be happy to do the merge). Some above have suggested List of Middle-earth Elves but this is not appropriate, because Elros is not an elf but a half-elf who chose to become man, and the first king of Numenor. Cenarium ( talk) 17:27, 7 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elros&oldid=1069008744"