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 is clearly very strong consensus against deletion. There is no clear consensus as to whether the articles should be merged and redirected but, as has been pointed out, that can be decided elsewhere. JBW (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PAGEDECIDE says editors should consider how best to help readers understand a topic and that there are times when it's better to cover a topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context.
Tolkien conceived and wrote Lord of the Rings as one novel, split into multiple volumes, and I believe that's the easiest and best way to talk about the work. (Just like the best way to talk about Moby Dick is with a single article, even though, like LotR, it's very long and was originally published in multiple volumes.) Just look at the sources, and how they largely focus on the work as a whole and not individual volumes: [1],[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]...etc.
Now look at how comprehensive the The Lord of the Rings article is, and compare it to how under-developed the articles about the individual volumes are. If a reader types "Fellowship of the Ring" into Wikipedia, do we really want them to wind up at the start-class Fellowship of the Ring article? An article with just a handful of references, that mostly conists of an overly-long plot summary, that barely touches on the things a reader would want to learn about, like the work's development, themes, influences, etc.? Wouldn't it be better for them to wind up at the comprehensive Lord of the Rings article, which covers everything in the FotR article plus lots more? Of course the three sub-articles could be expanded over time, but, in the end, is there a compelling reason for them to exist in the first place? WanderingWanda (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I mean, I hear you, and appreciate the bold idea, but there are three books, and each of the books is notable in its own right. If there's significant overlap between this and the Lord of the Rings article, then the more reasonable approach would be to have that focus more on the series as a series without getting into the specifics of the individual books -- as each book has more than enough to say about it to make its own article. So, yeah, this is a definite keep for me, but again appreciate the bold idea. TheOtherBob 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An obviously notable book. AFD is not for cleanup, per WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP; proposed content rearrangements and merges are best discussed on the talk pages of their respective articles. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 20:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Update OK, it looks like this nomination is about all three books. My assertions are the same for all three books, and my recommendation is keep for all of them. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 21:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps we can make this a Snow Close? What you are suggesting has merit, but deletion is not the right way to go here. You should have a merger discussion as that is what you are actually proposing. Deletion is only concerned with notability and the books pass on those grounds. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above as well. The articles are clearly notable and just need some clean up and then they'll be golden. My assertion is for all three articles.QueerFilmNerdtalk 21:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wonder. I hear all the instant reflex Keep !votes, but the 3 articles are all neglected and it's hard to see what they're actually for - there's the main LOTR article (pretty good), 3 scrappy unmaintained "book" articles, lots of character, place, and artefact articles (in need of work, and they're getting attention now from me and others). Deletion may be a wee bit drastic but it's not absurd; of course we'd want to merge and redirect to LOTR instead, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But merge is keep. The merge discussion has to be proposed on the pages that will be merged. It is a different process and if AfD has consensus to merge then the admin closing the AfD keeps the page and someone else has to go and propose the merge. An agreed merge would indeed involve a redirect being created. Thus my comment above. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD can decide on merge as an outcome, though this one clearly won't. But you're right, the matter can be pursued outside this narrow forum. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the purposes of this AfD, or open to merge. The three books are all notable. Why not discuss this with involved and uninvolved editors on the talk pages? Esowteric+Talk 21:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or Void if the AfD criteria have not been met here. Esowteric+Talk 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and of course leave redirects, to The Lord of the Rings. While this is at AfD, it is clearly more of a merge discussion. However, I support it being at AfD (due to how contentious this will be) instead of left to rot on the talk pages. A bold nomination, but I must agree. The subpages are mostly plot, with little actual sourcing. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, we have the leeway to decide how to best present the series. The three book breakdown is a bit of a publisher's formality, as it was intended to be a single volume, but of course you're not going to sell a single, 3,000 page book. I note that the main page could certainly absorb the others without crowding; the LoTR page has only 43kb of prose, well under the 100k max we prefer. Creating a single subsection for each of the three books would make a complete article that was not overly crowded. Most of the sources (even on the subpages) discuss the series as a whole, rather than as individual books. I also note that the main page receives some 5-10 times the page views as the subpages. I see no need for us to maintain several poor pages, when we could simply maintain one good page and have the same end result: our readers become well informed about LoTR. Combined with issues of context, I agree that having standalone pages is unnecessary. I would urge others reading this not to reflexively vote keep, but instead consider that our duty is create an excellent encyclopedia, and that having a certain number of pages is less useful to our readers than having concise and accessible content. Smooth sailing, CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would urge others reading this to not reflexively vote merge, as this is the wrong venue. You and Chiswick Chap have good arguments for merging, but these belong on the talk pages, where all the editors watching the articles can see them, not just the masochistic few who choose to participate at AfD. AfD definitely should not be wielded as a sword of Damocles to force a merge discussion. Let's not turn AfD into a general drama board for all manner of contentious article edits. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 01:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because the trilogy could be covered at one article, doesn't mean it has to be. Easily passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Cleanup is needed, especially with the WP:ALLPLOT issues, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. There are some incidents of books meant to be published together having a single article (I and II Samuel share Books of Samuel), but there isn't a precedent that that has to be done. I don't see a strong enough reason to combine three books that all easily pass WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG into one article on the trilogy just because we can. Hog Farm (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LOTR: There is no trilogy; there are no three books. It is written as a single novel, and often published as one volume. Within the novel there are six books, originally published in three volumes.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LOTR: It is a single work with relatively unimportant subdivisions; redirects to a table of chapters/books/volumes/ in LotR would be good. PJTraill (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LOTR per nom and CaptainEek, Chiswick Chap and Jack Upland and others, but reserve the option to split out again if elements focused on the individual works become large enough. Some consideration is also needed on how to handle sales figures and meta-data (e.g. I know Wikidata can be tweaked to reflect this merge, but some care may be needed to ensure the right tweaks are made, plus some updating of the incoming links would be useful). I would suggest that if the result here is merge (or even no consensus) that a post-AfD discussion is continued at the appropriate article talk page on how best to handle this. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What Tolkien intended is well documented, but the books were released separately, reviewed separately, are (most often) sold as separate books to this day. Moreover, and most importantly, RS consistently describe LOTR as a trilogy not as a novel ("There is no trilogy"? According to whom? RS treat it as such, and we're not art critics, we're WP editors relying on those same RS).--MattMauler (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per the other bob.Halbared (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and spend time improving the articles instead of talking about deleting them. Deagol2 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:DINC. If you want to make the plot summary more concise or do other edits, that's fine, but that's not what AfD is for. — Xaonon (Talk) 01:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with MattMauler that this is treated as a trilogy by everyone except maybe Jack Upland, I guess. The movie adaptation was released as three movies -- see The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. This is obviously a notable work, and per WP:ARTN, the current state of the article does not diminish the article subject's notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people don't agree this is a trilogy.[7][8][9][10] Simply because the book is often sold in separate volumes does not make it a trilogy. Charles Dickens' novels were first published as serials. Simply because the Jackson movie version was a trilogy is not particularly relevant. He also filmed The Hobbit as a trilogy. The Lord of the Rings article, understandably, treats it as one novel. There is a continuous story, and the volumes cannot be understood as standalone volumes.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LOTR – per nom. It’s one novel, best for the reader to present all info on the novel on one page to the extent possible. Plus these three spin off pages are essentially just extended plot summaries. Better to merge for now; it can always be split again if it grows unsizable in the future. Levivich 14:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The more I see, the more I'm tempted by merge, but I'm reminded of the words: "One Page to rule them all, One Page to find them, One Page to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them", and wouldn't want this movement to go too far. Esowteric+Talk 19:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Esowteric, You reminded me of this ditty I wrote up the other day, on an unrelated, yet quite applicable, note:
Three rings for the admins under ANI,
Seven for the vandal fighters with their bot of clue,
Nine for draft writers doomed to be unnotable,
One for the dark Jimbo on his open talk page,
In the Wikipedia where the articles lie,
One ring to verify them all, one ring to cite them,
One ring to bring them all and in the AfD delete them,
Thanks. I really needed a laugh today. Esowteric+Talk 20:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! AfD needs less vitriol and more poetry. Thank you for that. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 22:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The novel articles are in poor shape, and it's very unlikely they'll be drastically improved any time soon. Regardless if you view it as a singular book or a trilogy, the three are child articles of "The Lord of the Rings." Even if you're of the opinion that all three have the potential to stand on their own, I can't see any harm in upmerging them. It'll either draw more traffic to the main article and allow for it to reach GA/FA status eventually, or it'll incubate those articles until such a time they aren't just a plot summary and two reviews each. TTN (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think the strongest argument for a "keep" is WP:DETAIL -- in summary style, the LOTR entry would provide an overview of all three, and then additional pages on the individual books would provide a space for a level of detail that exceeds what would be reasonable in the main article, such as longer plot summaries. However, other than plot summaries, I'm not sure what would go on these individual book pages. I actually think it would be difficult to find coverage to satisfy notability criteria per book; I don't think I've ever seen literary scholarship discussing only The Two Towers independently, for example. The fact that the books were published within months of each other is very different from how contemporary series work; unlike with the movies for example, hardly anybody really had a chance to react to them as individual novels. (Although readers encountering them later almost certainly do apply "trilogy" expectations to them.) So although I came here scoffing at the idea of a delete for such a famous book, I now think a merge to LOTR, deleting the individual book articles, is the most appropriate. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 00:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The books each got ample review when they were first released months apart from one another. The reception section of each article could be expanded if anyone can find old sources from back then. Look at how popular the Hobbit was and it came out in 1937 and then these three books came out in 1954. The Lord of the Rings is at the top of the List of best-selling books of all times. So a lot has been written about each book. DreamFocus 02:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For people who are open to a merge discussion but think AfD is the wrong venue, I think it would be helpful if you made that clear in your vote, with something along the lines of "Procedural Keep...but open to merge discussion". (I don't see the reason why we can't hash out how best to handle the articles here at AfD, but I admit I don't have much experience with merge/deletion discussions.) WanderingWanda (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I'm all for deleting Tolkien-cruft such as explaining the details of individual battles or a list of elves by name, but this is just silly. This is pretty much the main point in the entire franchise. All three books have been notable for about half a century now. JIP | Talk 08:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge My experience is that deletion discussions get more attention and more action than a merge discussion ever can. These books were written as a unit. At times they are published as a unit (my copy is one large volume. The breaks are internal book breaks, there is no actual change from one book to the next in a way that compels treating them as new books. The same actually applies to the films, since they were all filmed at once. I know the size and popularity and existence of three titles compels people to see these as three works, but they can just as easily be seen as 6 works, and are at root just one work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if there have ever been examples of translating only one of the books. My understanding is that originally the LotR movies by Jackson were meant to only be 2. It is also of note that the 1970s animated film movie covered everything in one film all the way to the Battle of Helm's Deep, so not all adaptations have followed the 3 works break.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jackson's movie trilogy breaks up the story differently to the book version. In the book the "breaking of the Fellowship" is split between "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers". The capture of Frodo by orcs is split between "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King". The movie version tries to create self-contained episodes, whereas the first two novel volumes end in cliffhangers. The movie trilogy is really an adaptation of LOTR as a whole. It uses the titles used by Tolkien for the three volumes as published, but the individual movies are not adaptations of the individual volumes because the storyline of each is quite different. Because of this, it's wrong to argue that because the movie version is a trilogy the book version must be a trilogy, as the three movie instalments don't actually correspond to the three book volumes.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fully agree with MattMauler. A merge discussion could take place in the appropriate venue if necessary (though at least on the surface of it, I think I would vote against a merge as well) but for the purposes of this AFD, the standalone articles should be kept. — HunterKahn 18:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I think we need to reform the system. Deletion debates have much better changes of coming to people's attention than merge ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but that's still not a good reason to bring an issue to the incorrect forum. — HunterKahn 13:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter Kahn, I think WP:NOTBURO applies here. Yeah, maybe its not at the ideal forum. But its here, and we can solve the problem here and now. Closing this, just to open a merge discussion, that is covering the same exact issue? Seems an unnecessary amount of bureaucracy. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Aside from the (overly detailed) plot summaries, there's very little meaningful content that's unique to the individual volumes. The whole thing can easily be covered in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 20:09, February 2, 2020 (UTC)
Keep. These books are independently notable and of literary significance. Merging hists of historical revisionism. --Aurictalk 16:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each published volume is notable and is cited in its own right. I'm dismayed by the amount of energy devoted to deleting articles, where will it end? One article Books by Tolkien? I'm seriously considering closing my account. Thu (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see List of best-selling books of all time. AfD is not for cleanup. This is very notable in regard to the franchise. Wm335td (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wm335td, The list of best selling books lists it as a single book, not three separate volumes. What is your point? This isn't about deleting things altogether, but rather merging into one singular article, which would be more accessible. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek My point is that this is a notable part of the franchise. IMO it deserves a stand alone article. Wm335td (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wm335td, But how is it a notable part of the franchise? Why a standalone for each "book" (even though they are all one book) and not a singular article that could cover the series in context? And as I said earlier, the entry on the list of best selling books is "Lord of the Rings" not any one of the individual titles, which are publishers formalities (as a footnote on the bestselling books page mentions). CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: This then makes it a content fork issue. I would say this is a valid content fork, since there is coverage of the three books as separate. We have Torah and the individual five books even though, tradition holds that they were composed as one unit and they are more commonly published as a unit than individually. There are times for content forks. Hog Farm (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't one of those times. There isn't enough content to justify forking–it's all extended plot summary. Love the point about List of best-selling books and yet it's listed as one book. I also love how nearly every keep !voter is arguing that "it's notable" when nobody is arguing that it's not notable, including the nom. Keep voters completely ignoring PAGEDECIDE as mentioned in the nom. But I think this is why having merge discussions at AfD isn't always a good idea. Probably should've been done by RfC. Levivich 23:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you that a lot of the plot summary absolutely needs to go. However, I do think that an (albeit shorter) article can be crafted around what we have here. Just because the article is in horrible shape right now doesn't mean that it needs to go. Hog Farm (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that a shorter, better article could be drafted in place of what's there now, but I sincerely think that it's better for our reader to have one regular-sized page that talks about the book and all three volumes, rather than having three short pages. (Per WP:PAGEDECIDE.) I also agree that in theory, there is enough that could be written about LOTR that splitting the main LOTR page would make sense, and if we did split it due to WP:PAGESIZE issues, splitting it among volumes would also make sense. I just don't think we're there right now. I think the best thing we can do today is to redirect the three volumes to one main page, and put the content onto the page and develop it, and at some point in the future, when the page grows too big, it can be split out again. – Levivich 23:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much that could be said about the three volumes that wouldn't better said in one article. The characters are the same; the plot is continuous; criticism etc is of the whole work.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:47, 4 February 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.