This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SwisterTwister (talk | contribs) at 06:06, 29 April 2016 (R). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:06, 29 April 2016 by SwisterTwister (talk | contribs) (R)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Curufin
- Curufin (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)
This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V verifies its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. This character only has in-universe notability as no sources support real-world notability. AadaamS (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to the most applicable character list. The article does not currently possess the means of establishing itself as a stand-alone topic. TTN (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 11:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. GScholar hits show significant attention to this character, as do GBook hits and popular commentary. There may be Tolkien cruft in need of pruning, but this cookie-cutter nomination with evidence of compliance with WP:BEFORE falls far, far short of making a credible case here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect as still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)