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 redirect to History of Arda#First Age. Content remains in the history and anything sourced can be merged at editors' discretion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Age (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)

Non-notable fictional age. Yes, the First Age of Middle-earth is mentioned in several scholarly articles, but the references seem to just be saying that something occurred in the First Age, not discussing the First Age as a unit of time. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to somewhere suitable. Even if there is analysis on it, it should be explored in a parent topic before being split out at a later date should size issues be a concern. TTN (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential redirect target History of Arda § First Age. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm undecided on deletion. Like, we have an article on 1523 despite the lack of sources "discussing 1523 as a unit of time". It seems like there is a basic need to summarize and organize content based on natural divisions like time. How does this reconcile with the GNG? And to what extent does this extend to fictional elements? I don't know. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BenKuykendall: Also, the Second Age and Third Age articles seem to have been redirected. I don't see why the First Age should have an article, while the Second and Third don't. Hog Farm (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to History of Arda § First Age per BenKuykendall. Likewise, redirect Fourth Age to History of Arda § Fourth Age. Goustien (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to History of Arda § First Age and merge any sources that would help verification of target content. This seems like a reasonable approach, as the target has an adequate summary given the modest amount of source content. In response to BenKuykendall's question, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years has a little guidance. Articles on historical years will have many links to them, but fictional Arda years, no I cannot see that. I think notability of articles like this rest on WP:GNG. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 02:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to History of Arda § First Age While historical time periods may be notable, the vast majority of fictional time periods are not. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:38, 30 January 2020 (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.