LOTR:Articles for deletion

Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where LOTR users discuss whether articles should be deleted. Items sent here usually wait a couple of weeks while debate takes place on whether the article should be deleted or not; then the deletion process can proceed based on community consensus. The page is then:

• Kept
• Deleted per the deletion policy
• Sent to Cleanup or BJAODN
• Merged and/or redirected to an existing article
• Renamed/Moved to another title
• Userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage

When nominating an article for deletion, add template {{afd}} to the top of its page, which expands to:

"I regret to announce this is the end." This article has been nominated for deletion. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Reason: no reason given You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.

Please vote below to either Delete or Keep

Current nominations

Places

1. This article's format is completely alien to the One Wiki to Rule Them All's universal article-layouts.
2. The article's listed contents are not complete, by the standards of the contents it does have, despite the article's time of creation being TEN years ago.
3. The repository on the One Wiki to Rule Them All that does actually hold all Middle-earth Places, Category:Places, is mentioned nowhere, as if the creator was not aware of the category's easy accessibility.
4. Despite that list-articles or even list-templates in interwikian context are called portals, the therefore-proper category of "Portals" has never been added to the page, by any of the six personnel who have edited it.

The prominent nature of each of those four reasons is, in a certain dimension, embarrassing - and so I will delete this article unless there is reasonable opposition. HiddenVale - TalkPage 19:01, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

I support the decision to delete this article for the reasons listed above.   ArrestoMomentum | talk 

The multiple pages about people outside Middle-Earth

While Tolkien himself and things related to him should stay articles like Christina Scull seems rather pointless to me. Caspoi (talk) 17:52, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

I half-agree, J.R.R. Tolkien must have 1 individual article, while among his sons only Christopher Tolkien, Micahel Tolkien(he is really important as he nearly gave inspirations for his father to write the whole The Hobbit novel) and Royd Tolkien should have their own page. While the rest of Tolkien family , friends of Tolkien and member of Inklings should be merge into a list. Well, that's only my personal suggestions. But I think this is quite an interesting topic to be discussed. ----Prince of Erebor—(Reply Press Here)

Goblins

It's pretty well established that, while colloquially many people think goblins are small types of orc, per Tolkien the two words are essentially synonymous. The "Goblins" page should be deleted and links to that page should be redirected to "Orcs" - where, incidentally, the issue of the two different words is discussed at length (perhaps at too much length, but that's another issue). Valid info from the two pages can be merged. - Gradivus, 15:57, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It will be far to confusing on one hand. And plus Goblins are the smaller Orcs. Yes they are Orcs, just like the Uruk-Hai for example, but are referred as Goblins. For example I'm European (Orc), but I'm also English (Goblin), that means while I'm an Orc, I'm also a Goblin. Should not merge.... TheGoldenSickle, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Keeping two pages only continues the mistaken belief that the two words (goblin and orc) mean something different. There is no evidence that Tolkien meant goblin to be anything more than a translation of orc; the word "Goblins" doesn't even appear in the exhaustive index of The Lord of the Rings under "Persons, Beasts and Monsters", at all! ("Orcs", of course, does appear,) Golden Sickle, can you give any citation of a canon (Tolkien) statement or suggestion that goblins are the proper term for smaller orcs? In The Hobbit Tolkien used "goblin" to refer to all orcs, Including the Great Goblin – who I believe was huge and therefore (if you are right) should have been referred to as an orc. He wasn't. - Gradivus, 18:19, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

I still say keep. The Great Goblin, as Tolkien states later, may have actually been an evil spirit in the form of a goblin/orc. While as I stated Goblins ARE Orcs, but it's easier to divide them. In your logic I can also ask why do the Uruk-hai have a page if they are all Orcs, and why do the Mountain and Cave trolls have a page - if there all Trolls, the answer is simple - because they are not just orcs, there Uruk-hai, they are not just Trolls, there Hill-Trolls (for example). And yes Goblins are smaller in size, you can tell by Tolkien's descriptions of them in "The Hobbit", as opposed to the later Orc descriptions. Even the Moria Orcs, are in fact Goblins. TheGoldenSickle, December 19, 2012 (UTC).

Delete. The reason Uruks and Uruk-Hai (literally, "Uruk-men," meaning the same as "Uruks") can have their own page is that they are specifically mentioned by Tolkien, in Lord of the Rings, as a particular class of orc. Tolkien never mentions goblins as a distinctive class of orc, and I see you have not managed to find any citation from a canon source to support your contention that they are. Saying that Tolkien used the word in The Hobbit is no help because he used goblin throughout that book, and later Tolkien himself specifically said that the word just means "orc" and that he used the English word "goblin" for simplicity. -- Gradivus, 20:34, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

I agree to merge it with the orcs article and text adjusted accordingly. Yes, Tolkien never mentions Goblins as a class of orc but he DOES mention them thoroughly in The Hobbit and that deserves some consideration. Merge!--DarkLantern (talk) 22:02, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, merge. That's what I meant by delete, i.e., merge the pages and delete the second page. Yes, Tolkien used the word goblins throughout The Hobbit so it should not be disregarded and should be discussed (as it already is on the Orcs page), but I think Tolkien was quite clear that he meant it to mean the same thing as what he called orcs in his later books. It was only in The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien started using his own languages; The Hobbit was basically a children's book (albeit a sophisticated one), so he used English words as much as possible, which is why he used the word goblin In that book. --Gradivus, 03:14, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Goblins page should be merged with the Orc page, makes sense as it will stop confusion that they are separate breeds but I don't think that goblins should be completely removed as the word is mentioned a lot and from the way it it used in books like The Hobbit it does seem possible that Goblin refers to smaller or less advanced orcs, also goblin imps are mentioned so they must be a real thing in the universe. (The Great Goblin (talk) 00:30, December 21, 2012 (UTC))

HiddenVale has removed the {{Afd}} (Articles for deletion) notice from the "Goblins" page and since the consensus here so far seems to be Merge, I've added a {{Merge|Orcs}} template there. - Gradivus, 12:14, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Keep There is an obvious difference between Orcs and goblins yes they are Orcs but if uruks and uruk hai have their own pages than goblins should as well

Keep If you have actually read The Hobbit, then you will see the line: Because all goblins, even the Orcs of the mountains, ride low. This shows that Orcs are a species of Goblin and if one page is to be redirected to the other then it is Orcs that should be redirected to Goblins. Keelan717 ( Talk ) 16:38, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. That sentence does not show that orcs are a species of goblin. Consider this sentence: "All meat-eaters, even the carnivores of Africa, love the taste of beef." Do you think that means carnivores are a species of meat-eater? Of course not - they're the same thing! Good writers frequently use synonyms in the same sentence for variety; that doesn't mean synonyms mean something different from each other! Merge. - Gradivus, 20:36, November 30, 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that to prove your point the grammar would also have to be different: Because all orcs, even the goblins of the mountains, ride low. because right now "orc" would be the subgroup if we are adhering to your logic. and I hope no one will say that Orcs are simply a subgroup of goblins like it is implied by you because that would be insane. Caspoi (talk) 23:31, November 10, 2014 (UTC)

Keep, per above. Winterz (talk) 12:19, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

I say Keep; the distinctions between the term goblin and orc are explained on both of the pages. HiddenVale

• Keep Having taken time to read the article, I believe it should be kept. It clears up things rather well. I'm glad I read it. Dream Focus 21:44, November 13, 2013 (UTC)

• Merge - The "distinctions explained on both of the pages" are not from Tolkien, but from non-canon sources and opinions. - Gradivus, 18:35, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Goblins, and Uruk-Hai are both a kind of sub-species to Orcs. They are Orcs, but there is enough difference to name them a sub-species imho. As long as it is made clear on each page about the situation, I shouldn't merge them.

Merge. There is no evidence that goblins were a subspecies of Orc. Saying goblins were a subspecies of orc is like saying Men are a subspecies of Humans. There were different types of Orcs, but about the English word goblin Tolkien was quite clear - he said explicitly - that goblin is merely a translation of the word orc. - Gradivus, 11:17, November 15, 2013 (UTC)

Yes to merge Goblins with Orcs! I agree with Gradivus. All that I have read, heard, seen is that Goblins were a name or as he said "merely a translation of the word orc."--DarkLantern (talk) 00:46, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

Reconsidered my vote from above, Goblins are indeed just Orcs mentioned in the Hobbit, I'd agree with merge. Winterz (talk) 19:00, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Merge- For my reasons please go to the merge section. Caspoi (talk) 17:08, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Keep - Goblins have their own culture and have many differences from the Orcs as Orcs lust for battle and serve Sauron. Goblin's yes joined with Sauron but so did the Haradrim and the Easterlings so does that make them Orcs? Keep because if we refer to goblins as smaller Orcs then we take their culture, their portrayal, and their tactics away which Tolkien never intended.

Merge-There are no canon sources of Goblins being smaller orcs. The Orcs called Goblins in the Hobbit were essentially the same thing, even in some non-canon sources the differences are slight. -Patfan1

Hill and other landforms

Delete or Merge into the big list of Animals and Other Things That Are Totally Mundane So Everyone Already Knows What They Are But They Are Mentioned in Tolkien's World So People Think There Should Be An Entry for Them Here. - Gradivus, 16:18, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Merge. Caspoi (talk) 17:10, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Changed my vote, delete, it does not contribute in any way than keeping a register over all the hills of Arda. Caspoi (talk) 15:05, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

I now agree The same should go for things like Forest, Mountain, Volcano, and others.--DarkLantern (talk) 23:32, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

Previous nominations

The section of selfishness vs. selflessness in Themes in The Lord of the Rings

Anyone who has read it should understand what I am speaking of. What it essentially does is taking the above section of Christ figures and putting it all in a pantheistic light. Not only that but it also has the cheek of claiming itself to be the "true" version. Well it is not, Tolkien was a catholic Christian and he was the subcreator for Middle-Earth, you can not escape that. Lastly it also uses content in the movies only as support. I therefore propose that it should be deleted or overhauled to such an extent that they are essentially the same. Caspoi (talk) 14:26, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

Keep. This section points out the underlying reasons behind some of the major themes which are explicitly stated in the books. There are many references to the isolation one feels when subject to the Ring's power and temptation. There are also many mentions of self-sacrifice, and it is made very clear that this is a virtue to be admired. The author of this piece gives actual reasons as to why the themes which are so strongly stressed throughout the book are important, considering the nature of humans. The fact that Eru Iluvatar cherishes humans (as well as hobbits) makes it clear that much of the virtues and morals promoted in the book are meant to apply within the limits of human nature. (Not to mention the fact that the book was written for humans, by a human). Thus an explanation of the major themes in light of why they are beneficial, given the nature of humans, is very fitting, and is essential to gaining a full understanding of the story. Lastly, to say Tolkien is a Christian does not show that he meant his book to be a perfect parallel with Christian themes. Although he was surely inspired by his own Christian upbringing, the themes discussed here are universal, found in books and scriptures throughout the ages. (Not to mention that even if you are right about his intentions, which is up for debate, you are putting undue emphasis on authorial intent, which should not matter as much as the work itself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent#New_Criticism). The author of this piece simply extracted these themes and explained them purely and simply, ignoring all cultural and historical context. To limit the scope to Christianity alone would be to exclude all people of other beliefs from benefitting from these eternal messages. If Tolkien wanted to write a Christian parable, he would have written one. Yet he didn't, and instead wrote an epic story of tremendous significance to all peoples. His message is timeless, and the themes are universal. To deprive the world of an articulate explanation of why the themes embedded in the LOTR are important, would be to show a lack of care or consideration for the personal and spiritual development of all those who may happen upon this article and gain something from it, if only for a more complete enjoyment of the story. Michael, 19:27, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, but then the section should be more universal. It is from a "spiritual/psychological perspective" and to influenzed by religious dogma (from a religion that Tolkien himself did not adhere to). Caspoi (talk) 22:01, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

My argument was that the section is extremely universal, and leaves out any specific references to doctrines or dogma. Your argument is that since Tolkien adhered to a certain religion, we should automatically read into his writings and view them in a Christian light. You said, "What it essentially does is taking the above section of Christ figures and putting it all in a pantheistic light," and then, "I therefore propose that it should be deleted or overhauled to such an extent that they are essentially the same." Thus it would seem you believe we should do away with the general spiritual/psychological perspective, and leave only the religious perspective. This would be foolish as he does not make any mention of Christianity in the books, and thus the themes should speak for themselves, regardless of their origin. The general perspective is obviously more irrefutable. I think we should leave both, since they're both relevant. Michael, 7:27, March 5, 2015 (UTC)

You do not understand, what I am saying is that it is not a general/universal/objective point of view. Caspoi (talk) 23:58, March 14, 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that the article is not universal/objective enough? Or that it should not be universal/objective? If it is the first, then that is what I had in mind when I wrote my response. I'm only arguing against that. Michael, 18:14, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Is not. That is what I wrote in my second argument, making things pantheistic is not making it universal. The best way to achieve that is having it secular and not mention religious concepts (because yes, it does have such) at all. Caspoi (talk) 15:48, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I don't see it as being pantheistic. I see it as psychological. Michael, 16:00, March 24, 2015 (UTC)

Bestiary

I don't believe in this article anymore! Really, listing high beings like the Ainur as 'Bestiary' and sapient beings like Elves, Men, and Dwarves as 'Bestiary'. Ridiculous! There is also no point in keeping it even for beasts as we already have an article for them see: List of animals. I vote delete! --DarkLantern (talk) 19:41, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

Tuariel and Arwen

Aside from being unable to spell Tauriel, this page is just pointless, as if a troll felt like dropping a blob of nonsensical fanon in for a laugh. See and judge for yourselves, but I vote delete (heck, I wished to delete it myself to save everyone the time - hence why I'm listed as editing it (I had no idea what to do, sorry <:) )).--Stitch's Fifth Arm (talk) 19:50, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

It has been deleted. The content of this page is really laughable.  - Darkchylde •  Talk •  Contribs  11:22,4/4/2015

Rabbits

Really? A separate page is needed to tell people what rabbits are? Really? Are we going to have a separate page for every common noun used in Tolkien's writing? Bacon? Taters? Trail? Doors? Clouds?

Keep It has a legitimate place here as long as the article sticks to its relation to Tolkien Mythology and the story.--DarkLantern (talk) 01:35, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Keep it, rabbits are involved in the stories and now that the hobbit is out there can be a film section added about Radagast's rabbits in the film. (The Great Goblin (talk) 02:44, December 22, 2012 (UTC))

Delete, say I. Too many ordinary words are being given their own pages, as though their ordinary English meanings have to be explained, just because they are used by Tolkien in his stories. If a "Rabbits" page is justified, then don't forget to have a separate page for "Sled" too, then. And Gandalf had a beard, so let's have a "Beards" page. The book described his clothes and hat, too - "Clothes" and "Hat" pages needed! I still say delete. - Gradivus, 19:47, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Delete. There is no reason there should be a page for an insignificant species such as a rabbit as you could get as much as you need to know on other websites. This Wiki is not a nature guide (or a dictionary for that matter!). - Keelan717 ( Talk ), 11:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep, rabbits have become rather notable. Winterz (talk) 21:48, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

I say Delete. HiddenVale

Then why did you remove the {{Afd}} code on March 1? - Gradivus, 15:12, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

Delete. This subject is so far from anything important, everybody either knows what a rabbit is or can look it up anywhere. I don't see the significance of it.

Merge them into one big list Animals in Tolkien Mythology deserve a mention. Tolkien's world was a world of High Fantasy with a special place for the things in nature, and animals are part of nature. Tolkien's world had animals in it as minor or background parts in the stories. Examples: Beorn's animal friends helping him in an such unique way (moving furniture around), the deer running down the Dwarves in Mirkwood, the Thrush in The Hobbit, the Raven of the The Hobbit playing a part, the Fox that Frodo encountered on his way out of the Shire. I think their individual pages should be dissolved (redirected) into one big list. (List of animals). The only animals or creatures that would be the exception would be Crebain and Black Squirrels because they would be unique. See my combinations of the things in here: List of unnamed original characters of the books and films and List of Miscellaneous Items and Objects of Note.--DarkLantern (talk) 10:15, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Gradivus, 12:10, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

• Merge into list Per DarkLantern. --Stallord's Minion (talk) 23:54, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

• Merge. Individual pages are too much but it may be good to have some sort of record on them. Caspoi (talk) 17:07, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
• Merge. Merge into a list of Tolkien animals that don't differ from Modern day animals, keep animals like Wolves or Eagles that also have abnormal abilities/traits should be kept separate, but it is pointless to have one on deer and rabbits alone

• Keep. Although rabbits' role is minor, they appeared in both books and films, so the page should be kept. ----Prince of Erebor—(Reply Press Here)

Merged Since most people who voted on delete and merge, the list idea was favoured and so the answer is List of animals. Also, since no really bothered to conclude or help with task of its merge, I have taken full charge and created the list on my own. For these things to be held-up for so long is ridiculous and somewhat sloppy-like, so I have put an end to it! Thank you to those who voted.--DarkLantern (talk) 05:47, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

Deer

Delete. Same reason as with "Dogs" and "Rabbits" above: We don't need (and shouldn't have) a separate page for every animal casually mentioned in the novels. - Gradivus, 20:41, November 30, 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, aye. Changed my vote to merge per DL. Winterz (talk) 14:59, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Merge them into one big list Animals in Tolkien Mythology deserve a mention. Tolkien's world was a world of High Fantasy with a special place for the things in nature, and animals are part of nature. Tolkien's world had animals in it as minor or background parts in the stories. Examples: Beorn's animal friends helping him in an such unique way (moving furniture around), the deer running down the Dwarves in Mirkwood, the Thrush in The Hobbit, the Raven of the The Hobbit playing a part, the Fox that Frodo encountered on his way out of the Shire. I think their individual pages should be dissolved (redirected) into one big list. (List of animals). The only animals or creatures that would be the exception would be Crebain and Black Squirrels because they would be unique. See my combinations of the things in here: List of unnamed original characters of the books and films and List of Miscellaneous Items and Objects of Note.--DarkLantern (talk) 10:15, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Gradivus, 12:10, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

• Merge into list Per DarkLantern. --Stallord's Minion (talk) 23:54, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

Merge. I have already given my reasons in the rabbit section. Caspoi (talk) 17:09, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Merge not necessary separated but should keep any special members/types of the animal kingdom separate from this list

Merged Since most people who voted on delete and merge, the list idea was favoured and so the answer is List of animals. Also, since no really bothered to conclude or help with task of its merge, I have taken full charge and created the list on my own. For these things to be held-up for so long is ridiculous and somewhat sloppy-like, so I have put an end to it! Thank you to those who voted.--DarkLantern (talk)

Rune

'The format of Rune page is strange. It is useless as it is neither a disambiguation page nor a informative page. So I think it should be deleted. Prince of Erebor’’’-(Reply Press Here)

This page should be a disambiguation page called 'Runes' which directs you to Daeron's Runes and Dwarf Runes.--DarkLantern (talk) 06:55, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

I think 'Rune(Disambiguation)' will be fine. It is too wordy and complicated to have such a long title. ---- Prince of Erebor’’’-(Reply Press Here)

This pa

Matter closed and dealt with.--DarkLantern (talk) 23:45, March 14, 2015 (UTC)

Dwarf Miner

The page is about an unnamed, non-canon character who is seen for about three seconds. It is pointless and should therefore be deleted. Caspoi (talk) 10:19, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree this time, it should be kept. Some minor role in the book like Fladrif or Finglas, their role is so minor that they were only been mentioned, so should we delete this pages too? Moreover, Dwarf Miner is a credited role, so I think we must keep this page. ----Prince of Erebor—(Reply Press Here)

Merge into existing list for the unnamed: With no name, this character is a mere figurant and should be here.--DarkLantern (talk) 02:29, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Agree with DarkLantern. So merge Dwarf Miner into the List of unnamed original characters of the books and films. ---Prince of Erebor-(Reply Press Here)

Majority rules Deleted and text moved to here.--DarkLantern (talk) 13:53, February 12, 2015 (UTC)

Facing the Enemy

Opinion-like fandom. I vote delete!--DarkLantern (talk) 22:43, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It fulfills no true purpose. Caspoi (talk) 12:32, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with DarkLantern and Caspoi, this page have no actual use in the wiki. ----Prince of Erebor—(Reply Press Here)

Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 01:38, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Dragons of middle earth

I vote that this be merged with Dragons.--DarkLantern (talk) 10:57, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Caspoi (talk) 17:11, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Some relevant text transferred, title deleted.--DarkLantern (talk) 00:49, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

LOTR abbreviations

I vote that this page be deleted; it seems unnecessary. -- 72.200.56.18, July 3, 2014

Yes, it is a rather pointless waste of space if you ask me. Caspoi (talk) 17:13, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Agree, delete.--DarkLantern (talk) 00:49, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Deleted.--DarkLantern (talk) 00:49, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Shortbow

Delete Has no sources backing it! Needs sources!.--DarkLantern (talk) 10:15, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Winterz (talk) 13:37, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Two votes for yes and since no one else has participated it this, it will be deleted.--DarkLantern (talk) 16:57, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

Harethalean

Has anyone ever heard of this "mother of Legolas"? I haven't. Someone's making stuff up? - Gradivus, 23:25, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Fandom--DarkLantern (talk) 11:39, January 2, 2014 (UTC)

The Wizards Vale

Delete. This seems to some sort of minor game developed by an even minor party. They don't present it very well so I think it's not up to the minimum requirements needed to receive a page. Winterz (talk) 01:32, December 1, 2013 (UTC)

• I tend to agree on deletion, not because of how well it's presented so far (I don't think that should be a criterion for deletion) but because it seems to be spam for someone's forum. But do we have pages for other Tolkien-themed fora? - Gradivus, 01:59, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
  • You don't think how the article is presented should be a criteria for deletion? For example, an article about a mediocre theme that adheres to no format standards whatsoever and ultimately, says nothing of relevant, you wouldn't think this to be a reason for deletion?! Winterz (talk) 02:46, December 1, 2013 (UTC)

No! Badly written, yes! It is a real online forum and can be listed here.--DarkLantern (talk) 00:46, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

Refused for deletion. It is a legitimate Tolkien Mythology forum and CAN be listed on here.--DarkLantern (talk) 10:15, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Yak

Delete Same reason as with "Dogs" and "Rabbits" above: We don't need (and shouldn't have) a separate page for every animal casually mentioned in the novels (and I'm not even sure a yak is). - Gradivus, 18:27, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Empty and unjustified anyway.--DarkLantern (talk) 10:15, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics

Delete: It's simple, this is a wiki about the LOTR-universe not about Tolkien. This book has nothing to do with the fictional universe we work on here hence, imo, it doesn't come near of deserving its own article. Winterz (talk) 18:02, December 2, 2013 (UTC)

No! J.R.R. Tolkien wrote the essay and this wiki is partly about Tolkien since he wrote the tale.--DarkLantern (talk) 00:46, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, for the same reasons as DarkLantern gives. The wiki IS about Tolkien, as well as his specific LOTR writings. - Gradivus, 18:30, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Kept--DarkLantern (talk) 23:21, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Celtic Influences on Elves

Delete. Fairly cut & dried; it's a user pontificating his thesis. - Gradivus, 20:36, November 30, 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. This sort of articles shouldn't even be brought up here. Just speedy-tagged on the spot for deletion. Winterz (talk) 00:49, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily, because it comes close to the kind of discussion page that we do allow (e.g., Did Balrogs Have Wings? and Theories about Tom Bombadil). It may be merely a matter of turning it into a discussion page and putting it in the right place, rather than just deleting all of it. I thought it at least worthy of discussing. - Gradivus, 01:23, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
    • You make a fair point, however if you really want to save the information presented, then your proposal should be something like "merge and delete". Winterz (talk) 01:28, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
      • More like "revise and rename" for those who want to keep it, but my preference is still "delete" because I don't want to save it. Just allowing others to give their opinion rather than being dictatorial and marking it for deletion without allowing discussion. - Gradivus, 01:56, December 1, 2013 (UTC)

I say no to delete! Revise and rename! Tolkien was a "Linguist", "Phonologist", and a reader of legends that helped form his stories and universe.--DarkLantern (talk) 00:46, December 3, 2013 (UTC)

• DarkLantern makes a good point. I'll change my vote to Revise and rename as long as the page is in a put in the proper place, or raised to Wikia standards of including confirmable information rather than opinion. There is a difference between a page containing published information about a topic, with proper citation (which is proper for Wikia) and a page that contains nothing but opinions by the Wikia users (what Wikipedia disallows as "original research"), which should be in a discussion page, e.g. a blog page. - Gradivus, 18:27, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

Kept--DarkLantern (talk) 23:21, December 15, 2013 (UTC)

The Two Hunters Fan Film

I'd suggest Keeping it. The creator-to-be of this fan film does still seem to be active; he's occasionally updating his diary about it on his site. I love the LOTR fan films and am glad to see any information available about more that are potentially on their way. Peyre (talk) 03:11, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

• The one who added the "delete" tag himself didn't present his against-case here, so I don't think we need to make it for him. I've removed the "delete" tags from the article. Winterz (talk) 19:08, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Refused for deletion. As per the rules, serious Fanfilms with a limited but Real budget can be listed here.--DarkLantern (talk) 20:04, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

List of named original characters in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy

All of the characters listed there now have their own page, therefore it is no longer needed and as they are all Non-canon film characters and those types are second-class entries here, I don't see the value in it or the use in it anymore. I vote Delete.--DarkLantern (talk) 08:50, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's helpful to have a page that lists them all in one place, to answer the question "What new named characters were made up for the movies that weren't in the books?" So I vote Keep. - Gradivus, 01:32, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Categories are meant for something... Winterz (talk) 19:10, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Majority rules Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 20:04, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

Bridge

I vote delete. This is another ridiculous page like "Rabbits" – just because an object – a common, ordinary object or animal – is mentioned or used in some Tolkien book, doesn't mean you should have an entire page about it. It's just silly. The entire page is things like "The Noldor probably built bridges, and Aulë was a great builder of things so he probably built the first bridge, and the elves probably also built them because there was a bridge at Rivendell, and also Hobbits had them as well…." You could replace "bridge" with trees, houses, rope, … thousands of ordinary nouns could have their own page. There's no excuse for this. It's just ludicrous.

• There are some bridges which are very relevant to the Wiki, so I say we turn that article into a list or disambiguation page, so my vote is no to deletion. Winterz (talk) 12:17, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Winterz should be a disambiguation page.--DarkLantern (talk) 18:59, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 20:04, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

The Theme

Motivation: The creator of this page moved a blogpost and created a full article about it. I think this should be removed or cleaned up.--Nognix 16:30, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned up--DarkLantern 17:55, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Delete, this doesn't deserve an article. Winterz (talk) 19:03, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 15:01, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

List of Wizards

There only five Wizards listed total! We don't need another list on just anything in Tolkien Mythology. I vote delete--DarkLantern (talk) 21:38, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, per above. Winterz (talk) 21:45, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
• I vote Delete because there is a category for Wizards. HiddenVale 22:54, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
• Don't Delete, this is a useful classification page that got me to go on this wiki for the first time, and after the 5 wizards are referred to and 3 of them appear in the new Hobbit movie, it might draw others to find out more as well!
  • You're an anon (a non-registered user), therefore your words are generally of little value, if you want to prove your point, register. But even so, this is about consensus and most already voted delete. Winterz (talk) 01:00, March 30, 2013 (UTC)
  • I also found this site through this list just fyi. Also, Winterz, check your definition of consensus please. If the information is not covered on another page then this list should be improved, adapted to an already existing page, or changed in some way to make it more relevant/useful, but it should not be deleted.
    • I'd recommend you to visit some other Wiki then, you clearly have no knowledge at it. We're not gonna make a page just because one or two think it's cool. Yes this is consensus by majority, 2-1 and you're an anon which means that you shouldn't even be allowed to vote unless you register. Hence my count is 2-0 in favor of deletion, that seems a lot like consensus to me. I've put the list on the actual article for Wizards, we're not going to have a page just to list 5 individuals when the same can easily be done in the actual article. Winterz (talk) 15:20, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Majority rules Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 22:42, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Witch King's Ring of Power

Motivation: The rings given to man were not named and we don't know if there were differences between the rings given to men. Thus, there is no reason to make an article specifically about the ring given to the Witch-King. Also, it is an orphaned page.--Nognix 16:15, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, however since the author provided a picture from a video game then that may be grounds for making it a non-canon article.--DarkLantern 17:55, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Can you honestly see what it even is in that picture? It's one pixel big and it's the most unclear picture ever. Also, I can see by the graphical style that that isn't a video game picture but a picture from the films.

I vote keep. HiddenVale But no problem, I'll just start writing a ton of worthless articles that do have a picture from a random video game in the article. I could even create random pictures since you don't know anything about videogames and just include those in my useless articles. Anyway, I'll be writing an article about Elfhelm's sword or his helmet and I'll be sure to create a one-pixel-big, unclear, blurry photograph so it fits the guidelines. End of my reductio ad absurdum.--Nognix 19:23, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

No, need to over state things Mr. Nognix you've made you're point. I can't find in a search any evidence of this picture or information or connection to a video game anywhere so I vote delete unless of course the author or someone else can justify it.--DarkLantern 05:29, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Delete, even if it was featured in a videogame, that doesn't make a subject itself deserving an article. It should gather some notability at least, being an artifact that we know very little about doesn't meet those terms. At least, that's my opinion. We're not gonna make an article for all videogame-featured artifacts. Winterz (talk) 19:05, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 19:22, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings Birthdays

This is an unnecessary list; the birthday's are at character's article. Why do we need a list for it!? Plus, it has never been updated or paid any attention to. I vote delete!--DarkLantern (talk) 17:28, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

• I say we burn it down! Winterz (talk) 18:06, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
• I vote the same. HiddenVale 22:54, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 14:10, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Anar (dwarf)

I changed this from {{Speedy}} to {{Afd}} because the original page creator identified the character as coming from the The Lord of the Rings: War in the North video game. I don't know if that's enough to save it, but I've seen other non-canon characters that have been given their own {{NonCanon}} page, so I thought it should at least have a little discussion before it's deleted. - Gradivus, 03:51, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

• I'd agree not to delete it. Should receive some work though. Winterz (talk) 21:46, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
• Do not delete, not yet. Anar is said to be one of the dwarves who accompanied Bilbo in The Fellowship of the Ring. He's not only a non-canon character. Maybe we could only adjust the page. - Darkchylde (talk) 11:08, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Will be kept.--DarkLantern (talk) 09:11, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Album/doc

This is an outdated User sandbox that has served its original purpose, now it remains as just an ancient copy of the Template:Infobox Album. I say we delete it as it has lost any purpose of existence here for years. Winterz (talk) 19:52, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

I agree! I should have deleted it before! Its one those things that doesn't really need to be discussed unlike the others above.--DarkLantern (talk) 10:41, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 10:41, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Hound

Motivation: All given information is also in the Dog article.--Nognix 17:03, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

I agree Delete and transfer text to Dog article.--DarkLantern 03:25, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Delete and merge to Dog. Winterz (talk) 21:50, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Merged with Dogs--DarkLantern (talk) 05:39, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Uruk-Hai Scouts

Motivation: The information stated in the article is incorrect, I don't think there is a reference in the books or the films that the first Uruk-hai were called scouts. It is also an orphaned page.--Nognix 16:21, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Keep Uruk scouts were indeed the first Uruk hai. They don't have to be named by Saruman himself to be scouts, they were SCOUTING for the fellowship, so that basically makes 'em scouts. Just like pikeman Uruk-hai, they're carrying pikes, so call them pikemen, even though they were not named of their position in the books or movies, they're pikemen.Just like scouts. I vote keep.--Sauron's man 14:54, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The above mentioned is correct. Every army has it's scouts... - TheGoldenSickle, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

I vote Delete. Uruks do whatever their master tells them to, whether it's scouting or raiding or killing, or whatever. they're not a separate class or profession. We don't need a separate page for everything they might do; it's silly. - Gradivus, 02:16, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

Delete, too much speculation. Winterz (talk) 21:49, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Agree delete--DarkLantern (talk) 02:20, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 02:20, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Battles of the Third Age

This is unnecessary we have Battles, Timeline of Arda, and individual articles to explain them in detail. We don't need yet another list! I vote delete.--DarkLantern (talk) 11:30, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

1. I agree, delete. - Gradivus, 15:14, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
2. Delete. Winterz (talk) 12:18, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 12:50, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Uruviel's Argonath

Motivation: Advertising of a fan site. I checked the site and the last update was on the 4th of March, 2009 so I think we can assume it's dead as well.--Nognix 16:09, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Keep This is allowed to be here the way it is.--DarkLantern 17:55, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly do you draw the line between fandom and non fandom? You say you don't allow fandom on the site but we have fandom sites and fandom films.--Nognix 19:23, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Keep see:Forum:On Fandom--DarkLantern 05:29, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Kept Internet fansites can be listed and described here.--DarkLantern (talk) 17:51, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Uruk sappers

I believe the text to be movie stuff and speculation at that. I don't remember any Uruk-hai group known as Uruk sappers. Where did the author get that name from? I vote delete if no proof is stated.--DarkLantern (talk) 13:37, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

EXACTLY! That's something you should tell Sauron's Man directly, but you don't need to now. It should be deleted. HiddenVale (talk) 22:59, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

I have read through the chapter Helm Deep and found no evidence that this special unit of Uruks existed.--DarkLantern (talk) 08:13, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

EXACTLY! That's something you should tell Sauron's Man directly, but you don't need to now. It should be deleted. HiddenVale (talk) 22:59, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree there's no point for this page; it's not a particular type of orc. I vote delete. - Gradivus, 01:41, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 02:10, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Sappers

I have read through the chapter Helm Deep and found no evidence that this special unit of Uruks existed.--DarkLantern (talk) 08:13, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

I agree there's no point for this page; it's not a particular type of orc. I vote delete. - Gradivus, 01:41, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Clark

Give it the axe. May warrant a {{Speedy}}.

Deleted vandalism anyway--DarkLantern (talk) 21:38, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

The Black Pits

I vote Delete! My reason is recorded here.--DarkLantern (talk) 13:14, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

And where in books does it even say mines are under Barad-dûr (Lugburz)?--DarkLantern (talk) 00:17, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Exactly!! HiddenVale (talk) 00:21, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Deleted some text moved to Barad-dûr.--DarkLantern (talk) 06:30, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Mines of Lugburz

Never heard of such a mine being under Barad-dûr. I vote delete.--DarkLantern (talk) 08:13, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

And where in books does it even say mines are under Barad-dûr (Lugburz)?--DarkLantern (talk) 00:17, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Exactly!! HiddenVale (talk) 00:21, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Deleted some text moved to Barad-dûr.--DarkLantern (talk) 06:30, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Outsiders

I vote delete.--DarkLantern (talk) 17:27, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

I vote delete. Too many ordinary words are being given their own pages, as though their ordinary English meanings have to be explained, just because they are used by Tolkien in his stories. I feel the same about rabbits as well.

Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 17:42, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Tales: Adventures in Dragon Land Funding Credits (2000) (transcript)

There's a troll at work here. I've never edited this wiki before, but I know a troll when I see one. This has nothing to do with anything. TheLoKnessmonster 01:35, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Théoden's Decision

Motivation: I'll just use this page for any pages that don't really need to be voted, they just need to be deleted. I didn't see this scene already existed so I made a new one with the same name. Anyway, remove this.--Nognix 18:49, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Deleted empty!--DarkLantern (talk) 06:30, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Age.

These pages have absolutely no evidence, and they are completely unrelated to Tolkiens mythology. I say delete. --Derposaur

Ripper Orc

No such kind of orc. I vote delete!--DarkLantern (talk) 08:13, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

I half believe Ripper orcs. Yes, some orcs tortured Gollum, but they had torture devices, and one orc mentioned is really a Black uruk as in my page. I really don't know which to vote; Delete or redirect to Orcs.--Saurons man (talk) 02:28, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Forget about what I said, Delete! And as you said, no such orc was mentioned by Tolkien, and orcs don't carry clubs and shortswords and do errands. These are likely to be >Morgul orcs< or >Snagae< and not some kind of orc that's not even real! Delete,delete,delete!--Saurons man (talk) 8:26, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 09:43, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Archives

• 2007-05-01 Archive
• 2008-11-30 Archive
• 2010-2-12 Archive
• 2012-9-10 Archive