Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witch-king of Angmar

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 Nazgûl. There is a rough consensus that it should be redirected due to insufficient suitable sources (and related content) that is non-in universe. A couple of !votes were discounted due to no reason being provided. If there is a suitable piece of sourced content then it can be duplicated into the Nazgul article. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Witch-king of Angmar

[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)

Seems to be all in-universe plot, except for one sentence: "In the manuscript of his notes for translators, Tolkien stated that the Witch-king's name and background were not recorded ..." I suppose a redirect to Nazgûl would be (very) marginally acceptable. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a delete is applicable here. Celestina007 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nazgûl. Mentioned multiple times in that article, a redirect seems very much entirely acceptable.----Pontificalibus 11:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nazgûl, as the Witch-King is a Nazgûl in-universe. Hog Farm (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nazgûl While the Witch-king is not independently notable, he is the most prominent of the Nazgûl. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now we are getting somewhere. Although considering how many articles we have on truly minor figures in The Silmarillion this may be premature. However this character is not notable enough to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nazgûl. This article perpetuates the misunderstanding that the character is called the "Witch-king of Angmar"; that was only one of his guises. He is not called that in Lord of the Rings, the main work in which he appears, except in the Appendices. As noted above, his name has been forgotten. He essentially has no identity. His notable appearances in LOTR are that he stabs Frodo, confronts Gandalf, and is killed by Eowyn. He is not much of a character in his own right.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- His name was not forgotten. Tolkien never gave him one. There is a big difference between these. We should not engage in in fictional universe rhetoric in deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm merely saying that he is a non-entity in the book.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nazgûl. The article fails GNG, as all sources are primary. Since it is all in-universe information and a list of appearances in media, there is nothing to merge. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to Nazgûl per points made above sources are primary and too many in universe details Dartslilly (talk) 03:59, 7 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.