592:
commentaries as a source are sufficiently intellectually independent for the purpose of the analysis of his father's work. Setting higher standards would be unreasonable, it's impossible to find a reliable author on a subject that doesn't have a personal interest in it (how could one become knowledgeable on a subject that doesn't interest oneself ?), and there's no talking about financial interest since we know the fictional work in itself is already notable, and this would apply equally to authors publishing non-free books as they also have a financial interest in sustaining interest for the subject they're publishing about (so that people buy their books). You need to find a balance, and in this case
Christopher Tolkien's commentaries constitute a source sufficiently independent.
399:. So he's fictional captain/commander/general of a fictional group of fictional monster. Fair enough. But why does that make him important? Is he the lead antagonist or protagonist in any book? For sure, though, I'd argue for the replacement of the military engagement infobox with a character infobox (unless the article is supposed to be about the battle). I'd support merging this into something like
506:, the last paragraph of the article with its sources establish notability (in the GNG sense). The present coverage is significant enough, with multiple sources, and indeed we see that it allows to create a decent article without OR. In addition, the last paragraph shows that reliable sources consider that the character was significant in
633:
As indicated by the fact that each of those books and all of their authors have their own article and as testified by a cursory research, those sources are of the highest reliability in the domain, and this time incontestably independent. This clearly shows that several reliable independent sources
591:
No, not everyone. This one specifically has enough reliable sources sufficiently independent to justify an article. Most fictional elements of a notable work of fiction would still fail to have enough reliable sources independent enough to justify an article. I consider that
Christopher Tolkien's
300:. The fact is, middle earth is so popular that books of analysis are published containing virtually every character. The fact that the books are authored by the son of the creator and in his name doesn't impugn their reliability, in my mind, since they are only published
297:
608:
mentions Boldog several times, and details over three pages the fighting between Boldog and
Thingol. He says of Boldog that "his importance may be guessed not just from the fact that he is one of only two orcs (the other being Bolg) named in the Legendarium before
550:
part of an undoubtedly notable fictional universe (so removing any promotional concerns), I consider that an analysis book by
Tolkien'son constitutes a source that is sufficiently intellectually independent to provide for notability of the character.
714:
Christopher
Tolkien's editorial commentary in the HoME books may be independent, but I don't think that his detailing of variants in his father's different versions of the Lay of Leithan and associated material constitutes "significant coverage" of
755:
I have provided independent reliable sources discussing Boldog in detail, in the
History of the Hobbit the fighting between Boldog and Thingol is discussed over three pages and the quote above attests of the importance of this character.
229:
perspective, and this just serves as a narration of the character's appearances in books. I think there are many other similar articles that fail the notability guidelines in the same way, but it is best to just try one out for now.
190:
634:
consider Boldog notable in
Tolkien's work of fiction, providing detailed coverage of the character, therefore fulfilling the wikipedia notability requirements and warranting keeping the article.
376:" The "problem" is notable. Without independent reliable sources, the subject is not notable. If you have such sources, that will fix the problem. So far, no one has identified such sources. -
221:
There is no assertion of notability of this minor
Tolkien character; the only sources in the article are the books themselves, and I cannot find any evidence in reliable sources that Boldog is
712:
None of the sources are independent (Christopher
Tolkien's editorial comments in the HoME books are not independent), and I can find no evidence of substantive treatment in independent sources
270:
787:, as editor of his father's books and unpublished writings, is not a third party for the purposes of our policies, as he has too much of a personal interest in the whole legendarium.
96:
91:
395:. While it is nicely written (if you ignore it's mostly in-universe POV) and well sourced, the fact remains that it makes no claims as to what Boldog's claim to notability
247:
151:
184:
669:
independent reliable sources. Without such sources, no topic is notable. Additionally, there is no evidence of notability outside of the books themselves. -
573:
element of the universe mentioned in that source is notable. Every fictional location, every character, every fictional creature. That seems unreasonable. -
665:
asserting notability. It's well-written. Great, we won't have to re-write it. It has multiple sources (the author and his son). However, it has exactly
617:
528:
The GNG says that notability is only established by independent sources. Can you explain how the sources provided in the article are independent?
86:
372:
simply because it is poorly written and/or poorly sourced. The beginning of the section you cited, however, makes clear that we should "
62:
400:
17:
296:
The article has multiple reliable sources--books published by
Christopher Tolkein. Plus, I've found one more at Google books
597:
That being said, reliable sources by other authors, clearly independent, covering Boldog in a non-trivial manner exist:
813:
799:
765:
750:
732:
692:
678:
643:
582:
560:
537:
519:
496:
441:
385:
360:
335:
313:
285:
262:
239:
69:
205:
172:
124:
119:
830:
601:
128:
36:
829:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
719:
as called for in the GNG; and I can find no such significant treatment elsewhere (in a Google Books search for
703:
404:
356:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
741:
After further reflection, I've struck and replaced part of my comment above. No change in the !vote, though.
683:
Independent reliable sources discussing Boldog in detail and attesting of his notability have been provided.
783:, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Knowledge should not have an article on it."
111:
507:
804:
I have provided two other sources discussing Boldog in substance, both clearly reliable and independent.
490:
435:
166:
322:
I don't have the books myself, but the little extracts in the references do not appear to constitute
226:
57:
784:
674:
578:
381:
352:
198:
162:
48:. The concern of no independent sources to support notability claims has been addressed, it seems.
809:
761:
688:
639:
556:
515:
348:
309:
281:
258:
212:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
605:
533:
463:
408:
331:
235:
710:
if it's judged that there's nothing worth merging. No indication of real-world notability.
621:
451:
326:. This isn't the worst example of Tolkien fancruft, not by a long way, but it's up there.
52:
790:
746:
728:
670:
574:
377:
805:
757:
684:
635:
625:
552:
511:
447:
305:
222:
178:
277:
254:
145:
780:
529:
327:
323:
231:
115:
742:
724:
779:
No third-party sources are cited in the article or in this discussion. Per
613:. Even more significantly, ...". (Note: you can find this on google books)
107:
75:
510:, the quintessential work of fantasy, so an article is warranted.
823:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
458:
notability, it does not in any way manage to make a case for
347:
The article contains numerous assertions of notability. Our
454:-- while the article quite handily provides an argument for
374:
Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't.
628:, Boldog and his fighting with Thingol is also discussed.
407:
where he already has a nice, appropriate-length blurb. --
351:
is to keep such well written and well sourced material.
271:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
141:
137:
133:
197:
661:- Yes, it asserts notability. Great, no speedy for
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
833:). No further edits should be made to this page.
225:. No attempt has been made to write this from a
248:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
368:- Correction: That policy says not to remove
211:
97:Articles for deletion/Boldog (3rd nomination)
92:Articles for deletion/Boldog (2nd nomination)
8:
269:Note: This debate has been included in the
246:Note: This debate has been included in the
268:
245:
618:The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide
84:
7:
304:of the notability of the originals.
82:
24:
446:The policy I was thinking of was
704:List of Middle-earth Orcs#Boldog
401:List of Middle-earth characters
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
600:In the commentaries part of
569:What you are saying is that
87:Articles for deletion/Boldog
850:
814:22:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
800:07:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
766:22:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
751:11:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
733:19:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
693:22:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
679:00:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
644:21:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
583:16:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
561:13:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
538:08:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
520:01:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
497:16:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
442:15:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
386:00:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
361:20:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
336:07:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
314:18:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
286:16:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
263:16:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
240:09:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
70:03:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
602:The History of The Hobbit
546:Considering that this is
405:List of Middle-earth Orcs
826:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
456:ficitonal, in-universe
81:AfDs for this article:
611:the Lord of the Rings
508:Tolkien's legendarium
324:significant coverage
223:notable in real life
785:Christopher Tolkien
620:by Tolkien experts
450:and to some extend
44:The result was
798:
604:, Tolkien expert
494:
439:
288:
274:
265:
251:
841:
828:
797:
795:
788:
723:, for example).
606:John D. Rateliff
488:
485:
433:
430:
275:
252:
216:
215:
201:
149:
131:
68:
65:
60:
55:
34:
849:
848:
844:
843:
842:
840:
839:
838:
837:
831:deletion review
824:
791:
789:
781:WP:V#Notability
622:Christina Scull
495:
464:
440:
409:
158:
122:
106:
103:
101:
79:
63:
58:
53:
49:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
847:
845:
836:
835:
819:
818:
817:
816:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
736:
735:
721:Boldog Tolkien
717:this character
697:
696:
695:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
631:
630:
629:
614:
594:
593:
586:
585:
564:
563:
541:
540:
523:
522:
501:
500:
499:
487:
462:notability. --
432:
390:
389:
388:
353:Colonel Warden
349:editing policy
341:
340:
339:
338:
317:
316:
290:
289:
266:
219:
218:
155:
102:
100:
99:
94:
89:
83:
80:
78:
73:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
846:
834:
832:
827:
821:
820:
815:
811:
807:
803:
802:
801:
796:
794:
786:
782:
778:
775:
774:
767:
763:
759:
754:
753:
752:
748:
744:
740:
739:
738:
737:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
713:
709:
705:
701:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
681:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
657:
656:
645:
641:
637:
632:
627:
626:Wayne Hammond
623:
619:
615:
612:
607:
603:
599:
598:
596:
595:
590:
589:
588:
587:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
567:
566:
565:
562:
558:
554:
549:
545:
544:
543:
542:
539:
535:
531:
527:
526:
525:
524:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
502:
498:
492:
486:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
437:
431:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
343:
342:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
320:
319:
318:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
292:
291:
287:
283:
279:
272:
267:
264:
260:
256:
249:
244:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
228:
224:
214:
210:
207:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
164:
161:
160:Find sources:
156:
153:
147:
143:
139:
135:
130:
126:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
104:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
77:
74:
72:
71:
67:
66:
61:
56:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
825:
822:
792:
776:
720:
716:
711:
707:
699:
666:
662:
658:
610:
570:
547:
503:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
459:
455:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
396:
393:Delete/Merge
392:
373:
369:
365:
344:
301:
293:
220:
208:
202:
194:
187:
181:
175:
169:
159:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
185:free images
793:Sandstein
460:real-world
227:real-world
671:SummerPhD
575:SummerPhD
378:SummerPhD
278:• Gene93k
255:• Gene93k
806:Cenarium
758:Cenarium
685:Cenarium
636:Cenarium
553:Cenarium
512:Cenarium
452:WP:CRUFT
370:material
306:Jclemens
152:View log
777:Delete.
548:already
366:Comment
302:because
191:WP refs
179:scholar
125:protect
120:history
708:delete
700:Smerge
659:Delete
530:BigDom
448:WP:GNG
328:BigDom
232:BigDom
163:Google
129:delete
108:Boldog
76:Boldog
706:, or
571:every
491:blah?
436:blah?
206:JSTOR
167:books
146:views
138:watch
134:links
59:COMMS
54:ƒETCH
16:<
810:talk
762:talk
747:talk
743:Deor
729:talk
725:Deor
689:talk
675:talk
667:ZERO
640:talk
624:and
579:talk
557:talk
534:talk
516:talk
504:Keep
382:talk
357:talk
345:Keep
332:talk
310:talk
298:here
294:Keep
282:talk
259:talk
236:talk
199:FENS
173:news
142:logs
116:talk
112:edit
46:keep
702:to
663:not
616:In
403:or
276:--
253:--
213:TWL
150:– (
812:)
764:)
749:)
731:)
691:)
677:)
642:)
581:)
559:)
536:)
518:)
470:ĸĸ
415:ĸĸ
397:is
384:)
359:)
334:)
312:)
284:)
273:.
261:)
250:.
238:)
193:)
144:|
140:|
136:|
132:|
127:|
123:|
118:|
114:|
808:(
760:(
745:(
727:(
687:(
673:(
638:(
577:(
555:(
532:(
514:(
493:)
489:(
484:û
482:ĸ
480:â
478:ĸ
476:û
474:ĸ
472:â
468:û
466:M
438:)
434:(
429:û
427:ĸ
425:â
423:ĸ
421:û
419:ĸ
417:â
413:û
411:M
380:(
355:(
330:(
308:(
280:(
257:(
234:(
217:)
209:·
203:·
195:·
188:·
182:·
176:·
170:·
165:(
157:(
154:)
148:)
110:(
64:/
51:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.