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 The Silmarillion. Clear consensus to not keep the article in its current form - the only counterargument arguing keep apparently didn't convince anyone else although a bit more discussion on the proffered sources would have been desirable. There is some disagreement between editors on a merge or redirect, mainly due to concerns about which merge target to use and whether there is properly sourced material that can be merged. Neither discussion strand seems to have gotten to a clear consensus. Thus, this will be a redirect to the most commonly cited merg target, and people can merge stuff from the history as they desire or debate further adjustments to the redirect in the appropriate fora. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Round World version of the Silmarillion[edit]

Round World version of the Silmarillion (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)

Super minor fictional concept. Fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG. Possible WP:OR. Deprodded by User:Spinningspark with "I'm at WP:PRESERVE on this one. It at least has the benefit of being an out-of-universe discussion". Thank you for an interesting rationale, but we still need to find better sources and such, and I am not seeing anything myself, and I note concerns about OR. Can anyone rescue this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 25 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} 03:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:HASTE, there is no need in starting articles on topics that could be legitimate WP:SPINOUTs one day; the parent article can cover it fine for a long time. And this is even just an unsourced stub (no length concerns) and an unlikely search term. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's hard to see how this could ever possibly meet WP:GNG. At the very least, nothing came up in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @FOARP: Something certainly came up in my WP:BEFORE. See the links I provided below to book sources. SpinningSpark 15:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sources can be produced to support the material, in which case merge to Tolkien's legendarium. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Clarityfiend: there already is a source in the article. While it is not available in preview, there is no reason to believe that Christopher Tolkien did not discuss this issue in his massive commentary on his father's works. It would be a massive failure of AGF to assume that the editor (User:Ausir) did not get the material from the source. If you have doubts on that, you might want to take a look at Elizabeth A. Whittingham The Evolution of Tolkien's Mythology where she discusses this issue at length, particularly with respect to Christoopher Tolkien's commentary. She clearly believes the issue to be important in Tolkien's evolution: The 1946–1947 "Round World Version" is an important juncture in the final development of the Ainulindalë. Peter Kreeft The Philosophy of Tolkien also discusses it with a rather different take. It is covered in the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, which Piotrus in another Tolkien discussion said was his go to source for establishing notability for Tolkien elements. See the entries for "Earth" [1], "Middle-earth" [2], and "The Silmarillion" [3]. It is apparent that Tolkien spent a long time trying to solve this inconsistency and it was a major factor in him never finishing, or producing a canonical version of, the Silmarillion. SpinningSpark 15:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Christopher Tolkien's book is not an inline reference, so it's impossible to tell just what it's good for and to what extent; "no reason to believe that Christopher Tolkien did not discuss this issue" is speculative at best. In any case, it doesn't warrant a separate article IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it isn't speculative at all. Did you read what I wrote? I provided you with a source that discusses Christopher Tolkien's writings with several specific page citations to exactly the source in our article. WP:General references are a perfectly valid means of referencing an article. That is certainly not grounds for deletion even if you don't approve. SpinningSpark 20:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because "there is no reason to believe that [a source] does not discuss it"? Seriously? WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you being deliberately disingenuous? There is hard evidence that the Christopher Tolkien source discusses the subject because the Whittingham source says he does, and cites him extensively. There is also the matter of WP:AGF, a core policy. On the grounds that we assume good faith of the editor who inserted the source, we should assume that he is not misrepresenting it unless someone has evidence to the contrary (like reading the source and failing verification). SpinningSpark 14:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per my comments above. SpinningSpark 15:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Middle-earth canon or Tolkien's legendarium. Not individually notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the article on Simirilian, where a brief mention can be included on the process of getting that dreadfully unreadable book published, when C. Tolkien probably should have sought out a real writer to finish it before putting it to press.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Cosmology of Tolkien's legendarium.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. We don't just pretend there are sources. Kacper IV (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kacper IV: Nobody is "pretending" there are sources. The source in the article is perfectly legitimate. I have provided further sources above. SpinningSpark 14:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue here is not sourcing (although I am not convinced there is enough sourcing of this to pass GNG). The issue is that there is no strong argument for a seperate article on one of many multiple plot plans in the development of a book. Especially considering the low critical and popular success of the book. I tried to plow through the Simirilian despite my father's warning it was unreadable, and although I plowed through I remember little of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the article on the Similirian. This is a detail of the development that does not merit a seperate article. Even if when C. Tolkien dies whoever takes over the estate has more literary abilities and publishes a readable round-world version of the Silmarillion (as opposed to the unreadable one C. Tolkien published), I would still oppose a seperate article, and put both versions of the Similrilion in one article. That might not win, but with only one published version, I see no reason for this as a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - I doubt such a minor topic would be worth having separate even if there were some sources, but I see little point in giving benefit of the doubt to a topic that has existed for 15 years. TTN (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not give presedent to existing articles. Such a path would reinforce systemic bias to something worse that it already is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Silmarillion. Even if there are some sources discussing this topic, I'm not seeing why this would need to have a separate article from the book itself. This is just a single part of the development of what would eventually be compiled to make the published version of The Simarillion, and could easily be covered in the "Concept and Creation" portion of that article. Even with sources, this does not seem to be a necessary WP:SPLIT. Rorshacma (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Faolin42 (talk) 18:35, 29 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.