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 keep. There seems to be general agreement that there are sufficient reliable, independent sources available to satisfy WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong| [confer] || 05:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radagast[edit]

Radagast (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)

Minor supporting fictional character fro Middle-Earth. There is a proposed merge, but the target article is even worse (and I've prodded it). No evidence the character received sufficient in-depth analysis to pass WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. WP:PLOT+media appearances. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 12 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} 06:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As the editor who proposed the merge, I think this is a better option. Radagast is a minor character. He is mentioned briefly in The Hobbit. He is mentioned in The Lord of the Rings at the time of the Council of Elrond, and is never mentioned again. He is left out of the films of LOTR, though he has an expanded role in the films of The Hobbit. In fact, this article is probably longer that the mentions of him in Tolkien's published works, which is absolutely ridiculous. This does not belong in an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are specific papers about Radagast such as The Enigma of Radagast; Radagast in Middle Earth and plenty more coverage in more general works such as the The Origins of Tolkien's Middle-earth For Dummies. The nomination's assertions and claims are therefore false as the subject is notable per WP:NEXIST and WP:GNG. Relevant policies include WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE. See also WP:STAFF. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew Davidson's argument on the availability of sources. Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I vouch for the papers (minus the poem given Piotrus's comment) Andrew D pointed out, and there is also J.R.R. Tolkien: the Forest and the City (2013) which covers him in a review of the work, presumably meaning there would be more detail in Nycz's original work. -2pou (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vouch for? Did you even read them?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the poem in its entirety. Very nice. I had considered it good before, but I have now discounted that from counting towards GNG. Not because it is a poem, though (poetry can absolutely be a significant source)—only based on Piotrus pointing out that it was published before this particular publication became a peer-reviewed journal, and I now can't tell for sure if it is "Reliable" per GNG. I can't fathom how an editor or peer would change a poem as that would defeat the spirit of the art form, but I will keep things simple. Did I read the first paper? No, not in its entirety, I'm not ashamed to admit that, but I read enough of the paper to determine that educational institutions are willing to discuss the topic and enough for me to evaluate it against GNG. To be clear, I don't know enough about LOTR articles here to search for an appropriate merge or redirect target, so I am containing myself to the topic of deletion: yes or no, and at this point Notabilty is the only argument to delete. I treat ALLPLOT as a need to improve an article or change its focus, not to delete it (assuming Notability is met). ALLPLOT could help discount Significance in sources, though. Basically is it:
✓Significant - The topic is definitely directly addressed, and in detail without being a regurgitation of plot
✓Reliable - From a journal article that can be found via academic institutions, and the paper was published with editorial oversight
✓Sources (plural) - This doesn't have to do with endorsing, but there are at least two throughout this discussion
✓Independent - From an academic journal not controlled by the Tolkein estate
I interpret significant coverage as something that can be determined in as little as a paragraph (sometimes even a couple sentences), even when discussing how important or unimportant something should be treated. Let's say the Journal of Soda Pop publishes an article about 7-orange-cola calling it the most overrated and forgettable soda in the world, going on to explain that it is too sticky, too fruity, the pH is off, and there's too much carbonation over one page. That just counted as one source to justify notability, and only one more is needed to satisfy GNG, even if the other is just as diminutive to the subject. Again, I'm only commenting on whether material is justified as having a spot in Wikipedia, not where it should be. I'll abstain from a merge discussion as proper sorting is more difficult than throwing away or keeping, and should be carried out by those more knowledgeable than me. I personally would love to be able to look up anything, minor or major, but I'll follow the guidelines that are there. -2pou (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2pou: Thank you for your detailed response. As I said, I think that article is not best, since the coverage of Radagast is rather short, but more to the point, it is pretty much limited to quoting from another source, which I have traced to a book: [1]. Unfortunately, GB has no preview, and I can't find this book on Library Genesis, so I can't investigate if it contains a more in-depth analysis than what is quoted in that article. And so far what we have is borderline. But much better than we started. If this is kept, which is possible, we at least have sufficient sources to add a few sentences to the reception. A win in either case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the fact that a fan has written a poem about Radagast means we need an article. You'll always have the poem.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - I don't think the sources provided can actually build an article. It's probably enough to avoid deletion, but it should be relegated to some minor list. TTN (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: regarding the sources, "Enigma" says, "The wizard Radagast the Brown plays a minor role in The Lord of the Rings" and spends some time discussing why Radagast never appears later in the book. "Radagast in Middle-Earth" is a poem. The source related to The Forest and the City is a review, not an introduction. It says that claims of Radagast's importance are "overstated". I don't think citing sources like that proves anything. LOTR is a popular work, and even a minor character will be written about, but that no reason to give him a Wikipedia article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed above. Danke. -2pou (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Scholars have studied him, he was featured in various notable media to different degrees, and all those talking about the films always mention him, he a significant character. He seems as notable as a fictional character can be. Too much information to be merged over to another article. Dream Focus 23:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think old Radagast deserves a little article, esp. compared to what we see in other articles. Above, someone invokes "Tolkien for Dummies"--that's not the kind of thing that's really helpful, and neither is Mythlore, which can explain things but can hardly add to notability since Tolkien is their thing, or one of their things. But there are other sources, even though not that many--this book is a recent academic publication, and the two pages on Radagast certainly count as in-depth discussion. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages, only two pages, discussing an unrelated TV show!--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable character from a groundbreaking work. Lightburst (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSNOTABLE is not the best argument out there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. [2] is from 1985 and per Mythlore (cn...) "Early issues were fanzines, albeit with a "sercon" ("serious and constructive") bent. Mythlore became a peer-reviewed journal beginning with issue #85 (Winter 1999)". That said, [3] is a very nice source, and while I don't often agree with user:Andrew Davidson, this time he found a very nice source (and credit should be given where due). I am not sure if For Dummies series can be seen as a reliable source, this is the type of publication that doesn't seem above using Wikipedia as a source. [4] found by User:2pou mentions Radagast mostly in passing, but does cite a work that says "“once given the depth and substance of the Istari, Radagast is transformed into vital part [sic] of Tolkien’s narrative"; unfortunately the citations seem broken in this article, so I am unsure what is the source (some work by Dominika Nycz, perhaps). If anyone could trace that source and link it here, it might be the second in-depth source, and my personal rule of thumb is that once there are two good sources (so far I see one), a topic is notable, I and I am prepared to withdraw this at that point (so far, with one good source, I am still leaning to delete or merge). As for the source found by User:Drmies, the analysis seems superficial and this mostly a recount of a fictional character bio, so IMHO this fails in-depth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooooh Piotrus, it's two pages in an academic book. It may seem superficial to you, but it probably didn't seem superficial to the editors at Routledge. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: If the book was about Radagast, you'd be right. The book, however, mentions him just in passing. Yes, few sentences summarizing his plot with maybe one-two sentences of any analysis that goes beyond that is pretty superficial, and I doubt the editors at Roudledge published this book just because of its 'treatment' or Radagast. And User:Jack Upland pointed out the same problem with that source above, so it's not like I am the only one seeing an issue here. May I suggest that rather than tryin to argue this is good you find something better? You'll not convince me this is a good source, but you may convince me to withdraw this nom if you find a better one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Whether the character should have their own article based on the book is not important, because the character in The Hobbit film series is a significant fictional character. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know that WP:NOTINHERITED? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to Wizard (Middle-earth). See Talk:Wizard (Middle-earth)#Merger proposal. Goustien (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep Per the compelling arguments of DreamFocus, the Colonel & DrMies. Radagast isn't just some random human wizard, he's a Maiar, something comparable with a Principality. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the notability of Radagast as a fictional character, not about his notability in Middle Earth.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep Per the compelling arguments of DreamFocus, the Colonel. DrMies and User:FeydHuxtable. Indeed, given the finds of user:Andrew Davidson, it is clear that there was no compliance with WP:Before, which takes into account what the article can become, not just what it was when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Snow Delete: Just starry-eyed fans citing sources they've never read, not disputing that Radagast is a minor character.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I downloaded Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment and Radagast does not have his own entry in it. It is telling that he wasn't even considered important enough for an entry in a Tolkien-lore specialized encyclopedia... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's really isn't much to say about him, is there?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the general article on wizards of middle earth. Radagast just does not get enough coverage to justify a stand alone article. While the Hobbit movies may come close to tipping the balance, they do not go far enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Major characters in J. R. R. Tolkien's should not be deleted. No question about it. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but why do you think Radagast, who is only mentioned in LOTR around the Council of Elrond and is never mentioned again is a "major character"? How would you define a minor character?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 19 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.