Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolkien's Ring

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien's Ring

Tolkien's Ring (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)

Book rightly tagged for notability since 2011, search finds nothing to demonstrate notability. Only link in article is to a Tolkien Society review (at best, a doubtful source) which calls it a "coffee-table book" with "content ensures that the coffee table is where it will stay" and suggests "skip it". This isn't a book we should be advertising, even with a stub. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to David Day (Canadian writer). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is no 3rd party coverage at a level to justify the notability of this work. Just because a book covers a notable topic does not mean the book itself is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found one short review in The Chesterton Review here. However, the coverage is batched together in a mass review of a number of other books on Tolkien, and there is only one paragraph discussing this particular book. The "review" in a forum post that the nom found is ineligible for notability, of course, so this short blurb alone is not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. A redirect to David Day (Canadian writer), as suggested, is also a possibility, but a quick look at his article makes me question if he, himself, would pass the WP:GNG, so I don't see that as wholly necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the discussion above, this book has not garnered multiple independent reviews by reliable sources. Given questions about the authors notability and the fact that Tolkien's Ring could just as well refer to the One Ring, deletion is best. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to David Day. He is a somewhat reputable author on Tolkien and the book is mentioned there. Found this https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/dec/11/lordoftheringsfilms.filmnews but doesn't really mention the book. Archrogue (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cannot find any usable sources. Furthermore, the phrase "Tolkien's Ring" is very vague. It may refer to the One Ring, The Lord of the Rings or Tolkien's interpretation of Wagner's Ring cycle. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:11, 13 July 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.