Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhovanion

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 Mirkwood (target can be changed, if so desired). There was strong consensus to not keep this as a stand-alone article, but some expressed the wish to move/merge some sources over to more appropriate articles. This is best achieved by keeping the page history accessible, so I'll turn it into a redirect. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhovanion

Rhovanion (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)

Tolkien realm that lacks notability in the real world. Rhovanion has a number of hits on Google scholar, just about all in passing. Yes, it is true that Rhovanion is notable in the scheme of Middle-earth. However, these brief references in reliable secondary sources do not demonstrate that this realm is notable in real life. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As the article itself says, "Tolkien generally uses the name 'Wilderland' rather than 'Rhovanion'. Wilderland was introduced in The Hobbit, where Rhovanion does not appear at all. In The Lord of the Rings Rhovanion appears on the Middle-earth map and in the appendices, but nowhere in the main narrative body. In the main story, Wilderland is mentioned several times, including by wise characters such as Gandalf and Treebeard." Even in the works themselves, "Rhovanion" is not notable. As someone who has read the books several times, I couldn't have told you what it was. It is individual features like Mirkwood that are important in the story.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rhovanion is worth less than the sum of its parts. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Middle-earth. The article is sourced entirely to primary sources, except for one sentence about the language roots of the in-universe inhabitants, and therefore fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You seem to have missed the section about "Concept and creation". It is small but it does have reliable secondary sources. De728631 (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now added more secondary sources and information about Tolkien's concepts. De728631 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those sources do not actually help with this article, since they all relate to the distinct concept of
        Rohan and its inhabitants, whereas Rhovanion is a loose geographical term that includes Rohan, Mirkwood and Esgaroth, and is not discussed, as far as I can tell, in the sources you have provided. Given that the article on Rohan does not pass GNG in its current state, those sources would be better served transported over to that page. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Rohan is actually not a part of Rhovanion as the river Limlight in northern Rohan marks the southern border of Rhovanion (see the "Geography" section of the article). However, the people of Rohan originate from the north of Rhovanion, so their concept and the concept of Wilderland are heavily dependent. Apart from that, I have now added another source that discusses the significance of Wilderland for Tolkien's plots. De728631 (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mirkwood, a more specific target; it's not notable on its own. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mirkwood. and I thank all the users above who have specific familiarity with this concept in Tolkien's great works, and who added their input here. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Sm900, thanks also per them. ——SN54129 17:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to
  Wilderland. I am not sure this topic is notable indepdent of Mirkwood, but it is a large area than that, and I am sure we should use the name it is given in the actual works, which would be the common name, not the obscure name it is given in the appendix. I am less than convinced that we have good indepth scholarly coverage, but I want to make sure out discussion of this is focused on the common name. That Rhovanion almost never appears in scholarly work is expected, but what of Wilderland?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete After some thought this topic does not seem to merit an article. It also has the drawback that some of the stuff under "Kingdom of Rhovanion" seems to be fan-ficiton, that is interpretations of the nature of Middle-earth that goes beyond anything stated by Tolkien anywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although I agree primary-sourced plot summary needs to be significantly trimmed, I don't see why the secondary sources (potentially added during the AfD?) do not pass the GNG. If they do not constitute significant coverage in independent sources, I would love an explanation why. Also, a redirection
  Rhovanion § Concept and creation (the best sourced section of the article) applies to the broader region, not Mirkwood specifically. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I cannot speak for others, but personally I find those sources, while probably reliable, do not actually help with this article, and would be better off within the article on Rohan, as the sources given could all easily be slotted into that article. Also, the information given does not really seem like analysis, more like trivia based off brief mentions, with some of it (Namely the Men of Twilight paragraph) being in-universe information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:00 12 January, 2020 (UTC)
    • Within Tolkien's concept, the Northmen of Rhovanion are the ancenstors of the Rohirrim (people of Rohan), so I think it would be prudent to have this piece of secondary analysis in both articles. As to the Men of Twilight, this is of course an in-universe term, but notability is demonstrated when secondary authors care to analyse in-universe events of a story. De728631 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know exactly how applicable this is, but for Men of Twilight, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men of Twilight. Hog Farm (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would agree that the standalone article was too much for this subject, but in the context of Rhovanion it should be worth mentioning. After all, Tolkien chose this area of Middle-earth for the One Ring to disappear and re-appear, and not Rohan proper or Breeland which were likewise settled by Men of Twilight. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that the ringwas found by Stoor Hobbits, not by men at all. However we know absolutely nothing about the Storr Hobbits political organization so there is no way to speak about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have to second Devonian Wombat's view that the sources need to be moved over to the article on Rohan. They are not discussing the broad expanse of Rhovanion at all, even when they name the place, but instead are discussing the Northmen there are that kingdom. We have too little sourcing on Rohan, and pulling in the sources that connect to its early history will maybe save the article. There is no reason to preserve this article on a place that was never given its "proper" name in the text of LotR.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm thirding (is that a thing) Devonian Wombat's suggestion to move the sources over to the Rohan article. I personally believe that Rohan passes GNG, but it needs a lot of improvement in order to demonstrate notability. The focus should be on quality of Middle-earth articles, not quantity of Middle-earth articles. Hog Farm (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm lmao although it can be pardoned/tolerated when said but no you can’t per se “third a motion”. Your rationale regardless is plausible.Celestina007 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As usual I’d voice the intelligent rationale given by Johnpacklambert. I can’t see why the article is to remain after further consideration.Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 12 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.