Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angband

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 Morgoth. Tone 10:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angband

[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)

No indication this fictional location passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to show anything that's not a mention in passing/fictional bio summary. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with "significant location in Tolkien's work", which is sadly not a valid AfD argument, you'll have to try a bit better here. TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it is indeed a valid argument. A very significant location in the works of one of the most famous authors in the English language. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are not present to establish notability. Who cares about in-universe relevance? That has never had to do with Notability as defined on Wikipedia. That's a complete Wikia-like attitude. If sources are not present, then this is not notable. If sources are present, it's notable. If it's notable, provide sources. TTN (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this gets deleted, replace it with a disambig page as both Angband (video game) and Angband (band) exist. JIP | Talk 15:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep due to the existence of sources that establishes notability. Who cares if anyone doesn't like this material? --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)struck sock vote Praxidicae (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Morgoth. I can find no independant, reliable source to show that this article is notable. --Darth Mike^(talk) 19:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Morgoth. Goustien (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Mentioned in The Silmarillion, which is a minor work which never got critical or popular acclaim.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is key. Stuff in the Silmarillion should not be granted de facto notability based on the importance of LoTR.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in theory the location is significant, but it does not have importance to the plot of Tolkien's actual developed literary works. We also lack the indepth level of sourcing to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure plot. Necrothesp did not present a valid AfD argument. Kacper IV (talk) 09:33, 26 November 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.