Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gothmog (Third Age) (2nd nomination)

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 Middle-earth Orc characters. Left history can merge at editorial discretion Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gothmog (Third Age)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the article itself says, "The only reference to Gothmog in The Lord of the Rings is one sentence in The Return of the King", and "Tolkien writes nothing else about Gothmog — not even what race he belonged to". In Peter Jackson's movie, he appears as an orc, but he is still a minor character. Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's picked out as a significant film character in academic literature, and he even has a species named after him. I think there's a case for keeping this article, but, at the very least, a merge would be worthwhile; I am opposed to deletion. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gothmog (Third Age). Josh Milburn (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all arguments put forward in the previous AFD. The article references the single reference to the character in the books as a means to contrast the more significant appearance in the films; multiple non-trivial, non-primary sources exist, enough for the article to pass WP:GNG.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think you can inherit notability from a beetle. The GNG is that a "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources". There is no "significant coverage"; there are only passing references. The character in the movie is mostly notable for his make-up. He only has a couple of scenes and has very little dialogue.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After some thought. There are sources; there is real-world impact; there is some "stuff" to talk about other than just plot summaries. If an appropriate target can be identified, I may be willing to support a merge. It's tricky, though: not quite orc, not quite film only... Josh Milburn (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @J Milburn: Did you find any good sources? I looked and didn't find anything that impressed me, but if you did I'd be happy to review and reconsider. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm basing this on the sources already cited and those mentioned in the previous AfD. They strike me as enough. Your judgement may differ, and that's fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If there are actually sources discussing the topic, it should really be explored in a wider format article before being split out again in the future should weight support it. There are plenty of FAs and FLs that can be made out of Tolkien's works, and, if there are actually sources, the context this article would provide most likely belongs in one of those. TTN (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not convinced this is notable, sources in the article don't show anything but a passing mention at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into a new List of The Lord of the Rings characters. As usual, deletion of information which can be merged elsewhere benefits nobody. The reason such a list does not exist already is that all these were created as separate articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't really support a merge into a newly created article - especially one as broad as this one. He's too minor a character to have a massive section in a list like that - and who's going to write the rest of it? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the rare fictional article that falls under the heading "overly promotional". It makes claims not actually justified in the source material, and basically tries to leverage beatle naming and extended scenes into something notable. Not every character in a film is notable. Gothmog does not merit mention outside of the film itself. Passing one sentence mention is not enough to show notability. Maybe for people, but not for fictional characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Middle-earth Orc characters. Gothmog's coverage consists mostly of brief references, not in-depth discussion. However, I think merging is a better alternative to deletion in this case, as Gothmog has some (rather limited) coverage. Hog Farm (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (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.