Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilraen

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 merge to Aragorn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilraen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable minor fictional character from the The Lord of the Rings - sourced only to the legendarium and has received no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Extremely minor character not even mentioned in the adaptations that I can recall. Completely fails WP:N and WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete; no opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but if this isn't kept, redirect to Aragorn. After all, we redirect articles about nonnotable real people to their notable relatives. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect; Since I seem to be directly responsible for this article being targeted, I feel obliged to put my two cents in. Seeing as this character isn't very important, I see no need to for her to have her own article. But while I'm certainly not a huge LotR fan, I am a nerd, so I know there may be some who might be upset to see this deleted entirely (nothing in the rules about that, I'm sure). I recommend moving the information to Aragorn (if it isn't there already) and creating a redirect, as Nyttend proposed. Tymime (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the stuff about "Ónen i-Estel Edain, ú-chebin estel anim" to Aragorn. Figures who are mentioned only tangentially in LotR (i.e., in the appendices) or in Silm are better treated in the context of an article about a more significant aspect of the legendarium. Deor (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge Although we should have extensive coverage of the characters in this classic novel, this does not necessarily extend to the very large number of characters who do not actually appear. This material is best merged with Aragorn, and no reason given why a merge (& redirect of course) is not suitable. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 17 August 2009 (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.