Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finwë

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 no consensus to delete. Merge can be discussed further on the talk page, if needed. T. Canens (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finwë

Finwë (edit | 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 notability with reliable, third-party sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references you refer to are a book about the writing of the Lord of the Rings used to confirm the age of the character and a fan site showing a genealogy. The fan site is not a reliable source and I doubt that the book by Christopher Tolkien could be used to prove notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I confused the fan site with a journal, my apologies. I do consider the books in the History of Middle Earth series by Christopher Tolkien to be secondary sources, as opposed to the primary sources of the Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion. I note that there are several google book hits: some obviously not good sources but some that look like academic works (Die Weltdeutung im "Silmarillion" von J. R. R. Tolkien. There isn't quite enough context shown for me to be able cite them, but I consider that enough to show notability. Francis Bond (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Die weltdeutung... Google translate gives "The interpretation of the world" which is quite a vast title; is there a Google books version available to see it in context? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Christopher Tolkien books may provide appropriate context - while large parts of the HoME books are reproduction of unpublished work by JRR Tolkien, there is also a significant element of original work by Christopher Tolkien on the creative process. In principle this is no different to any other critic unpicking how a book was put together. If there is a significant amount on (say) the creation of the character of Finwe, this would contribute to establishing notability. You'd probably want another source as well though. 4u1e (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed those books I have access to, and there's almost nothing on Finwë. He is not mentioned in Letters or in Humphrey Carpenter's biography of Tolkien. Neither is he mentioned in Tom Shippey's two books on Tolkien or in John Garth's Tolkien and the Great War. Of the Christopher Tolkien books I have, he is only mentioned in Peoples of Middle-earth, but almost all mentions are in-universe and there is no discussion of the development of his character. Having said that, I do not have the most relevant History of Middle-earth volumes to hand (The Book of Lost Tales, The Lays of Beleriand, Morgoth's Ring and The War of the Jewels) and from memory those do contain some (brief?) discussion of his development. 4u1e (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm leaning toward supporting deletion of Elros, who took little if any active part in the fictional history; he's significant mainly for being the ancestral link between Aragorn and various figures in Beleriand. But Finwë has a more active role in the Silmarillion, so I reckon he's worth keeping if Joyce Summers is. —Tamfang (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability isn't about how important a character is in a book (and Finwë is hardly one of the main characters of The Silmarillion), but about how notable the character is in the real world, as indicated by secondary sources. 4u1e (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Changed my mind per Cenarium's reasoning below. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)) Merge and redirect to List of Middle-earth Elves. Martinez wrote another essay on Finwe (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/78484 – can't be linked because the host site is on the spam filter) explaining his genealogy and his role in the development of Tolkien's fiction. There's also a book by Hammond and Scull, J.R.R. Tolkien, artist and illustrator, that treats Tolkien's design of a heraldic device for Finwe and his royal house (Google Books page of the German edition). And what Temfang wrote above should also be considered. So while we might not need a full article, the current content itself should not be deleted. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be hundreds of third-party sources for this topic and so its notability is evident. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I followed the link as you suggested, and the results end up:
  1. Two novels with a similarly named character or at least quoting the same passage.
  2. A book that seems to list the names of Elven kings (not necessarily in a real-world context.
  3. Three French books, one of which looks like a translation of the Lord of the Rings
  4. A book on the languages of Middle Earth, which we cannot see inside.
I don't see how any of these books could be used to proof notability. Most mention Finwe in passing and don't focus on him, and there is a general lack of real-world context. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The diaeresis does play a role. Sources include:
  1. The complete Tolkien companion
  2. The complete guide to Middle-earth
  3. Tolkien: the illustrated encyclopedia
  4. The evolution of Tolkien's mythology
  5. A reader's guide to The Silmarillion
  6. The origins of Tolkien's Middle-earth for dummies
  7. J.R.R. Tolkien: myth, morality, and religion
  8. J.R.R. Tolkien and his literary resonances
Colonel Warden (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, any quotes to show that it is not just a passing reference or just a rehash of information found in first party sources? A Google books version would be better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the diaeresis, I meant that it was included so I should not have gotten any results for Finwe (without the diaeresis). Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Keep (changed after identification of suitable sources by Cenarium below)4u1e (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC) a brief mention to List of Middle-earth Elves. We don't need to keep the plot summary element of the article. There does not appear to be any significant real world commentary on this character - the references given above largely come about because more notable characters in the mythology are descended from him, so we get many google hits for the "descendants of Finwë", "sons of Finwë" for example. 4u1e (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: here are some Google links to the list by Colonel Warden with at least two important findings for the understanding of Tolkien's legendarium:

  1. The new Tolkien companion (not the "complete" companion): 20 hits within the book
  2. The complete guide to Middle-earth: One dedicated in-depth entry on Finwë and several other hits
  3. Tolkien: the illustrated encyclopedia: one encyclopedic entry, several other hits in the book
  4. The evolution of Tolkien's mythology: one large chapter on "Finwë and Míriel" that among other things expands on the fact that marrying again after the death of one's spouse was unheard of for Tolkien's elves until Finwë did it
  5. A reader's guide to The Silmarillion: 16 hits in the book, not clear though how comprehensively Finwë is being treated
  6. The origins of Tolkien's Middle-earth for dummies: apparently only mentioned in passing
  7. J.R.R. Tolkien and his literary resonances: views of Middle-earth: Interpretation of the Silmarillion that points out that it was actually the slaying of Finwë that drove his son Fëanor into his desastrous war of revenge, not so much the theft of the Silmaril by the archvillain Morgoth.

Apart from that one might even add a print-published slash fiction with Finwë as a character: The Silent Hustler ("Exiles", 163-177). That book itself may be non-notable but it demonstrates that the use of "Finwë" has gone beyond internet fanfiction. On that note it would be interesting to know whether the Tolkien Estate actually approved of Finwë being used in a gay short story. De728631 (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the links. I am however concerned that they may not be applicable under WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. This one may be useful for describing the creative process behind his creation, but sadly it cannot be read in full. (As a side note, I fully agree that finding out how the Tolkiens would react to published homoerotic slash fiction, or if they approved it, would be interesting... any friends to the family?) Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 3 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]
  • Keep, notable and suitable for a standalone article. The subject has been discussed by numerous secondary sources, and as one can check, the coverage is significant, as shown above and as I'll further demonstrate. WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:Real world are style guidelines, not relevant to notability or suitability for article-ship. WP:PLOT is relevant, but if you look at the coverage in secondary sources, it allows to write much, much more than just plot information.
Before substantiating this case, I'll make a general comment. It seems that several commentators consider that coverage by reliable secondary sources is acceptable for notability/suitability assessment purposes only when it is of purely 'real world' nature, such as creation of the character, reception, etc. This is wrong, WP:GNG doesn't specify which type of coverage is acceptable, and nothing in policy suggests that some sort of 'real world notability' is required, however that might be defined, what is required is notability according to WP:GNG. Of course when considering suitability for article-ship, we have to consider more than only notability of the subject, and there comes into play WP:NOTPLOT. But the corollary of WP:NOTPLOT regarding suitability for article-ship is that there should be some coverage which goes beyond pure plot information, and certainly not that only coverage of 'real-world' nature is relevant when discussing suitability. Now, regarding this case:
As an example of "more than plot" coverage, the subject of Finwe's remarriage (to Miriel) as a societal topic has been discussed by various sources. E.g.: J.R.R. Tolkien: myth, morality, and religion by Richard Purtill, in I Am in Fact a Hobbit: An Introduction to the Life and Works of J. R. R. Tolkien (how it involves monogamy, and how it led to "The Debate of Finrod and Andreth", documented in Morgoth's Ring), Tolkien in the land of heroes: discovering the human spirit, and Mythprint: Volumes 31-32 by the Mythopoeic Society (describing on this a 'fascinating debate').
Regarding the development of the character and its place in Tolkien's work, this is extensively covered in Arda reconstructed: the creation of the published Silmarillion, by Douglas Charles Kane. Finwë is mentioned in dozens of pages throughout the book, the story between Finwe and Mfriel is thoroughly covered, and the importance of Finwë's house highlighted. The author even makes the following commentary which further attests to the significance of the character: "Christopher's decisions to omit the bulk of the material on Finwe and Miriel and not include it as a separate chapter [in the Silmarillion], as Tolkien clearly intended, (...) are very disappointing." (emphasis mine), points which is further stated throughout the book.
This is also covered in The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide by Christina Scull, Wayne Hammond, where the relation between Finwe and Miriel is described as "an important element to the mythology".
In The evolution of Tolkien's mythology: a study of The history of Middle-earth, finwe and miriel are given a full chapter.
So this proves that the subject is notable, and that a standalone article is warranted in order to provide proper encyclopedic coverage of this topic.

Cenarium (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Regarding your first point, note that WP:WAF (part of the MoS) says that "When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources—this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate." Emphasis mine. I don't regard most of the coverage previously given above as relevant, but you do identify some suitable looking real world secondary sources, which is enough to tip me back to keep (with the proviso that somebody actually embodies them in the article!). 4u1e (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed but I think that the use of 'real world' here is innocuous, it means that the element should be notable in the sense of GNG, as opposed to just being notable in the work of fiction itself. GNG doesn't make distinctions based on the type of coverage; a source which would make the case that an element of fiction is important in the work of fiction for example, even without making reference to real world, would be valid for establishing notability. Cenarium (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how that warrants a full article. A well developed section at List of Middle-earth Elves, okay. However, right now we have some sources analyzing the marriage in the context of the book and the writing process behind him. As shown in the GNG,

    "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.

As such, having topics that discuss it in detail in universe to me shows that it might be kept, but it is up to consensus. There are quite a few editors (including myself) who believe that information about the writing of a rather minor character in one of the most popular series ever written should have a higher standard of real-world notability to avoid having too many articles. This seems to have precedent; Cho Chang (main character in HP5, supporting in three others) redirects to Dumbledore's Army, Yuffie Kisaragi (one of seven playable characters in FF7, and supporting character in FF7-verse]] redirects to Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series, and Míriel Serindë (wife of Finwë, as noted above) redirects to List of Middle-earth Elves#Míriel, even though they all had their own page once upon a time. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not only shown that the subject of the article was notable but that it was suitable for a standalone article. There is largely enough reliable secondary sources to make a full fledged encyclopedic article satisfying all the relevant policies. It may be that the article can be merged, but that is an editorial matter, out of AFD scope. AFD is here to determine suitability for a standalone article, not for whether a merge is appropriate. I'm not aware of any stricter standard for fictional elements of popular works of fiction. Also, other stuff exists. Cenarium (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff is useful for showing precedent. Previously, things have happened like this. They may not here, but they previously have. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff is an argument that argues that an article should be kept or deleted because another exists or does not. For example, the Pokemon test was essentially an other stuff argument, like "Keep. If Rattata has it's own article, this should too." I am trying to argue that other actions have been taken before, setting precedent. If precedent were not allowed, the would be no point in referring to the Common outcomes when nominating articles for deletion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not bound by precedent, consensus can change. That being said, you have not shown in any way that there exists a "precedent" for requiring higher standards for a fictional element when it is part of a 'popular' fictional universe. Míriel Serindë didn't go to AFD, it was an editorial merge. Yuffie Kisaragi didn't go to AFD either, it was an editorial merge. The suitability for a standalone article on those has never been tested. Cho Chang was the subject of one AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cho Chang, which resulted in speedy keep; it was later editorially merged. A topic may well be worthy as a standalone article but for editorial reasons better if merged somewhere, but this is not what AFD determines. The present topic is clearly suitable for inclusion as a standalone article, whether it should be merged on editorial grounds is not the question of this AFD, and even so the argument that you seem to make for it, that is WP:PAPER, does not credit your position since the relevant policies are satisfied. There's no question regarding notability, and there is much to be said beyond just plot information: the analysis of the marriage as a societal topic (not just within the universe), that Tolkien intended this story arc to be included in the Silmarillon, the creation and evolution of the characters, etc are more than 'just plot'. Cenarium (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On Crisco 1492's comment a few paragraphs back. How does one decide if there are too many articles? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. One valid criterion would be that they are blocking up the name space, but this is not the case here. The main resource bottleneck is in fact editor time, and trying to delete harmless articles (those that do not contain false and misleading information) that other people want to keep does waste this valuable resource. We all have our own different views as to what is more important, but there clearly is not a consensus that we gain anything by deleting articles like this one. Francis Bond (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is not, and it can never be perfected. My main argument for deletion / merger (I'm open to that) is that this article may not be notable enough to warrant its own article, per WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. However, one of the reasons why the notability criteria is in place is to limit the number of articles. We could not be considered an encyclopedia if we had an article on, for example, myself, no matter what somewhat impressive things I've done; I am not notable enough yet. Although Wikipedia's standards of notability may be lower than paper encyclopedias, they still exist and are ironically notable on their own. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Straying slightly from Finwe. If we look at a standard definition of Encyclopedia a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty (from WordNet, but other dictionaries have similar definitions, the only meaningful difference I have seen is that sometimes a definition adds "written by experts"). Wikipedia's notability criteria are purely an internal thing. I think the main practical reason is to restrict the number of pages we have to verify and patrol for vandalism. There is also a prestige issue, with some people feeling that to much trivia somehow cheapens the whole collection of knowledge, but that argument basically reduces to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Encyclopedia Britannica had to carefully choose articles because it paid people to write them and paid to print them. We don't have those costs. Returning to Finwe, he is a minor character in a major work, but one who is important to several of the philosophical issues that stand behind the work. Wikipedia's minimum standard of notability is "discussion in multiple reliable third-party sources" and Finwe is over that bar. I see absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia in shifting the information about him to another page and redirecting there (merging) or deleting it. Sorry to go on for so long, I also care about precedent, and I am hoping I can persuade you, and others, to preserve a little more and delete a little less. Francis Bond (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hear, hear. Note also, the Foundation's concern about declining participation in Wikipedia which is the subject of a current banner notice. The discussion there indicates that aggressive deletionism is a factor in driving editors away and we should be sensitive to this concern. Tolkien is a major author whose works are the subject of detailed and continuing scholarship. There are numerous third party encyclopedia and reference works which detail aspects of those works such as this and so it is proper for us to summarise their findings. Moving material about from one place to another is unproductive and not the purpose of AFD, which is to delete items which have no value at all. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doing a quick search engine test, I did not find reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume notability. In reliable sources, I only found trivial mentions, which, in my opinion, do not show that the topic meets the general notability guideline by itself since most of them are analysis of Tolkien's work as a whole, not about the individual fictional character. Within the article, there are only two sources, one of them a primary source, and none of them amounts more than a plot-description, which does not show how is this character notable in a real-world context. Most of the sources that I found are about the plot of Tolkien's work, not about the fictional character Finwë. I have yet to find a reliable source that addresses in detail the fictional character Finwë with more than one paragraph or that at least talks about the relevance of the character outside of Tolkien's work. Tolkien works are notable, as demonstrated by the many literary criticism essays, but notability is not inherited to every content fork. Per the policy what Wikipedia is not, since this article is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context or sourced analysis and I do not believe that there is evidence that shows that the fictional character itself meets the general notability guideline, I do not think that the article should be kept. Jfgslo (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could you also address the sources that have been identified during this debate? Francis Bond (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. I will omit the first eight mentioned in the first keep comment since Crisco 1492 has already pointed out that they are just passing reference or rehash of information found in first party sources and also the ones in De728631's comment since plot descriptions do not show notability. Hits within a book are in no way a measure of the quality of the references, and passing mentions from a plot-only point of view also do not show notability.
The ones that I have verified do not talk about the fictional character. For example, J.R.R. Tolkien: myth, morality, and religion by Richard Purtill doesn't address the fictional character and it's barely mentioned in page 166 in reference to Fëanor, but not in a real-world context.
In I Am in Fact a Hobbit: An Introduction to the Life and Works of J. R. R. Tolkien by Perry C. Bramlett, Finwë is only mentioned in one paragraph and in regards to his marriage with Míriel and, in fact, it is only used as an example of the real subject of the text, Tolkien's works and how he explored some topics. Same with Tolkien in the land of heroes: discovering the human spirit by Anne C. Petty. Note that none of these books cover the fictional character in detail or give analysis of it, they only mention the character as an example of Tolkien's work and even then it is not in detail.
Arda reconstructed: the creation of the published Silmarillion by Douglas Charles Kane once again does not treat the character significance in a real-world perspective but instead it is a description of how Tolkien developed the Silmarillion and how the concepts came to be, such as the Finwë and Míriel story. Using this as an example of the character notability is the same as saying that any concept that was developed in the Silmarillion is notable. Similarly, The evolution of Tolkien's mythology: a study of The history of Middle-earth is once again an account of the history behind the creation of Tolkien's work and again does not show how Finwë is notable in a real-world context.
So, the sources given here and in the article in discussion in this AfD don't show how the character is notable outside of Tolkien's work. The concept and creation accounts do not show notability in any way, they are merely a description of how the fictional character was created, which is the only thing that is supported in the sources cited here or in the article.
More importantly, none of the cited sources gives a detailed review of the fictional character without relying on explaining it from the perspective of the plot of the books. This, in my opinion, shows that Tolkien's books are the notable ones and that this character, Finwë, is not notable outside of them and, therefore, does not have real-world significance by himself, contrary to Frodo Baggins who is easily referenced from a real-world perspective without relying on the plot of the books and for whom sources that aren't related to analysis of Tolkien's work are available. Jfgslo (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This discussion confuses significance, which virtually no fictional constructs have in the "real world," and "real world" notability (as opposed to "in-universe" notability.) Aquaman and John Steed have precious little if any "real world significance" either, but they are notable because of the third party coverage satisfying the GNG. Much of the coverage dismissed here by Jfgslo is precisely the sort of coverage that demonstrates notability; the coverage described from "Arda reconstructed" -- exposition of "how the concepts came to be, such as the Finwë and Míriel story" -- is almost a paradigm of what we look for regarding fictional characters. To dismiss the coverage by saying that accepting it as indicating notabilitywould be "the same as saying that any concept that was developed in the Silmarillion is notable" is just wrong -- it is the same as saying that any concept whose development in the (various evolving stages of) the Silmarillion is covered by reliable third-party sources is notable, and that's virtually a tautology. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you that Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works and that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. If no sources provide real-world context then articles are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work, which is not material for Wikipedia. "Almost a paradigm of what we look for regarding fictional characters" according to whom?
Also, comparing how other articles treat fictional characters has nothing to do with the individual merit of this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). John Steed is a terrible example since his article is in terrible shape and in fact doesn't show reasons to be kept. Aquaman's notability is not particularly well established in his article either, which is why it is not a good article, but it can be inferred that it has notability since the character is recognizable outside of its original medium as shown in Aquaman in popular media. Is Finwë known outside of anything related to it's original medium? If you want to compare Finwë to other fictional characters in Wikipedia, then I would recommend to use Superman, which shows real-world context for his notability. The sources provided within the article and here show that Finwë is only notable within the fictional work. He is merely a character in Tolkien's work, no more notable than others fictional characters that are not known outside of their original stories. All these cited sources only show that Tolkien's work is the subject of several literary criticism studies, but they still don't show that Finwë is notable as a fictional character instead of just a plot-point in Tolkien's work. And if a fictional character doesn't have significance outside of their original work, then they should not have an article. In my opinion, the fictional character does not meet WP:GNG because all sources provided are either trivial mentions or do not treat the character (the subject of the sources cited here is the development of Tolkien's work, "Finwë and Míriel story" at best, but not the fictional character) and it also is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:PLOT, as I also mentioned in my original rationale for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That line of argumentation is totally unsupported by policy. It seems you are trying to push for some concept of "real world notability, requiring real world significance", but the community never endorsed anything like that; and even rejected specific fiction notability guidelines along those lines (not even that drastic it seems). The only notability that matters is WP:GNG, and this is satisfied, I don't see how this point can be disputed; you may not see it after a "quick search engine test", but the sources cited above prove it.
Now, in addition to this, articles should be able to satisfy relevant content policies, such as WP:PLOT but this is distinct of notability. Then again, there are sources which can provide for more than just plot information. The article can discuss the reception and significance of the character: there has been commentaries, of sociological nature regarding the remarriage (cf Tolkien: myth, morality, and religion, Mythprint, etc), criticism for not including more of it in the Silmarillion (cf Arda reconstructed), many commentaries regarding the importance of the character in Tolkien's mythology (his story with Miriel is called an 'important element' by companion & guide), which is a literary subject of its own, so definitely "real-world". Cenarium (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said, neither the sources here nor the ones within the article show that it covers the WP:GNG, because Finwë as an individual fictional character is not the subject of the literary analysis works in any of these. At best, the one thing that's analyzed is "Finwë and Míriel story" as a whole. In fact, the "Concept and creation" section of the article doesn't treat Finwë's creation but how in the different drafts he had different children. The main claim of notability is that the character has several Google hits within books that analyze Tolkien's work without taking into consideration whether the hits are for trivial mentions or not. The ones that aren't trivial mentions are for "Finwë and Míriel story", which shows notability for that, not for the individual characters. None of the sources provide here or in the article address Finwë in detail and per the WP:GNG, "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail and it is more than a trivial mention, so I still don't see how these sources somehow provide evidence of presumed notability. As you exemplified, it is Finwë's marriage with Miriel the one thing that is notable according to the sources provided, not the individual fictional character Finwë. Jfgslo (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:GNG says also that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Significant coverage does not at all mean that we need a Finwe-only coverage but it is sufficient if the character has been significantly mentioned and partially analysed in secondary texts. And that criterion is clearly met here with the sources provided above. De728631 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are forgetting the first part, which specifically says that significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail. The main subject of the sources is Tolkein's work and the subtopic that is addressed in detail in some of the sources is Finwë and Míriel story, which does receive some real-world context regarding the relationship between the two characters. Finwë, the fictional character, is not the subject of anything more than trivial mentions. If anything, some sources merely repeat part of the plot of The Silmarillion when mentioning Finwë, which makes them redundant and does not constitute analysis of the character, more in line with other fictional minor characters such as Mary Watson in Sherlock Holmes's books. So I do not think that the fictional character Finwë as a subject meets the criteria of the WP:GNG at all, much less WP:PLOT. Jfgslo (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The primary claim of notability of Finwë rests indeed in the "Finwë and Miriel story", as the sources define it. But you forget that the meaning of "directly in detail" is specified by what follows, i.e. "so no original research is needed to extract the content"; and clearly no original research is needed to extract content on the topic of Finwë as a fictional character from the coverage by the sources on the topic of the Finwë and Míriel story (Finwë, with Míriel, being, as one might imagine, the main subjects of it, and as can be verified in the examples of coverage provided, for example the subject of Finwë's remarriage directly concerns Finwë, the commentators consider his decision in light of its mortal status, etc). If you do maintain your point though, then I suggest the best way to address that is by creating (or moving Finwe to) an article on Finwë and Míriel, which may indeed be an improvement; but already as a topic, Finwë is acceptable. Cenarium (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are also forgetting that coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion, per the WP:GNG, and the sources that talk about Finwë do it so from a plot perspective, which makes them WP:PLOT, material that falls into what Wikipedia is not. Certainly, that wouldn't be OR, just repeating plot. Other sources only talk about the drafts of Finwë and Míriel story. So, the sources merely repeat information from the plot or the drafts (in which Finwë and Míriel story is the subject), but do not give any kind of real-world context regarding the reception or significance of Finwë as an individual character, so it is not a subject suitable for inclusion because it falls into WP:NOT. The current article reflects this, since it does not provide significance or reception for Finwë as an individual character. In fact, the article provides real-world significance for Finwë and Míriel story (relying on primary sources by the way), not Finwë, which means that it is extrapolating the significance of Finwë and Míriel story to the individual character Finwë, even though Finwë does not have significance by himself. Even if you believe that Finwë as an individual fictional character meets the WP:GNG, if the sources cannot provide reception and significance for the fictional character, then the character does not need to be included in Wikipedia. And discussing a character's decision from a plot-perspective is not reception or significance. And, by the way, I do not believe that Finwë and Míriel story deserves an article either, even if the concept shows notability, because that would be a complete exposition of all possible details regarding the Silmarillion instead of a summary of accepted knowledge. Jfgslo (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PLOT merely rules out articles that only consist of plot summaries. But the current article has two sections that inform on the literary concept and on the significance of the Finwe and Miriel story with regard to the literary evolution of Tolkien's entire legendarium. This does of course reference the plot of the Silmarillion but it doesn't fall under WP:PLOT. Instead the two out-of-universe sections provide reliable external views on the subject. De728631 (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned, two sections, one of which does not treat Finwë as the topic and which is the one that shows significance for the fictional work, equating Finwë and Míriel story with Finwë, the individual character. The other section provides the concept and creation of Finwë's family, not even even Finwë himself, nothing related to the character's reception or significance. WP:PLOT is clear when it says that Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works, and there is nothing of the sort for the individual fictional character by himself. It is always Finwë and Míriel story as a whole the subject that shows presumption of reception and significance. And I already mentioned what I think about Finwë and Míriel story. Jfgslo (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the Finwë and Míriel story is a particular aspect of the topic of Finwë as fictional character. I really don't see how you can argue that the story of a fictional character is unrelated to that fictional character. Sources may focus their attention on a particular aspect of Finwë as fictional character, but it certainly constitutes valid coverage for assessing notability. Independently of this AFD, for editorial reasons, it may be better to have the article Finwë and Míriel and redirect Finwë and Míriel there, but this is not a reason to delete Finwë. And again, WP:PLOT requires that there exists some valid non-plot coverage on the topic (which exists in this case), certainly not that only non-plot coverage is valid for notability-assessment purposes; the satisfaction of WP:PLOT is totally distinct of notability considerations. Cenarium (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to House of Finwe. Cenarium's analysis is sound, and there's no solid basis for deletion, but the article as currently presented is rather skimpy, and the content probably would be more useful both to casual users and to Tolkien devotees if placed into an article providing a broader perspective. If the article can be expanded to more solidly establish the significance of the character within Tolkien's cosmology, or if the history character's conception could be expanded, it would be easier to sustain a discrete article, but in any event the content should be kept. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cenarium. If there is not a consensus for that view, I think that List of Middle-earth Elves or House of Finwe are reasonable merge targets. This should not be a red link as it is a plausible search term (e.g. he has an entry in Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth). Eluchil404 (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or weak merge to either House of Finwe or The Silmarillion. This is coming from a Tolkien fan too. I agree with Crisco, where a lot of more important characters in their respective works do not have their own article, but it's obviously WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Finwe, while important to the history of Middle Earth, is not important in the real world. Most third party are really only referencing the work, and many have admitted that Finwe is only mentioned in passing. The only really valid source is The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide, mentioned previously. Because of this reference, merge is a possible option instead of a delete. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification -- The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide actually relates Finwe to the real world, claiming it to be an important element of mythology. The The evolution of Tolkien's mythology: a study of The history of Middle-earth might be a valid source as well, but I haven't read the chapter on Finwe to say for sure. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the consensus (Personally I think that it isn't yet... quite a few good arguments from both the keeps and the deletes/merges), it may not be clear enough; hence the relisting ("so a clearer consensus may be reached". Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the concensus had been the other way around, it would have been deleted without a relisting. This creates an imbalance where "concensus" is judged more harshly for keeping articles than for deleting them. AfD hero (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus has been reached. As I noted above, I don't think there is a clear consensus yet; although it is clear that there will not be an out-and-out deletion, a merger is still a possibility and has many strong arguments for it. The keeps also have strong arguments. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting should be only for pages which received little comment initially. Unclear consensus should default to 'Keep'. --12.42.51.27 (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia's guidelines for independence state ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.". The History of Middle Earth is a collection of scholarly analyses of Tolkien's work, including much hitherto unpublished material. Specifically, they are examples of "books published by respected publishing houses" WP:SOURCES. There is absolutely no problem in using them to WP:verify notability. Francis Bond (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is partly based on Christopher Tolkien's books. The other sources would be sufficient even if these were discounted. I agree with Francis regarding History of Middle-earth. Any interpretation of the rules that says that a series of 12 lengthy books released by a major publisher over a 13-year period (and that have remained in print to the present day) do not count towards notability is wrong. I'd have some sympathy with an argument that you can't get a neutral perspective by only examining Christopher Tolkien's work (the article doesn't do this, btw), but that's not the point under discussion. 4u1e (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While Christopher Tolkien's works may be considered to have been written independently of the original works, I don't think we can consider them to be independent enough to prove notability. Second-party sources at best, maybe. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 22 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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Finw%C3%AB