Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watcher in the Water

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. John254 02:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watcher in the Water

This guy is not notable (fails the four-pronged test). He has only a couple of minutes of screentime in the film and maybe is the focus of half of chapter in the book and doesn't even have a name. Now Middle-Earth is one of those subject matters where you can find a lot of information about practically anything you want, so fluffing up this article was not hard to do. But if you actually consider the real world impact it has, it's pretty much zero. Belongs on the LOTR Wiki, not here. Remurmur (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there exists many sources from third parties, proving its notability. That is the bare minimum to achieve notability for an article. Marlith (Talk) 04:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Monster with a significant role in the plot. That he doesn't have a name is part of the desired effect, not that the author thought it not worth the bother. Tolkien used names so effectively that the failure to do so here indicates an addition dimension of horror. There will be enough references, a with everything on this universe, so the argument would have to be what elements of his works are intrinsically unnotable regardlesss of sources. I don't think theats a sound principle. DGG (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a fairly well-sourced, detailed article about a character with a significant (albeit comparatively minor) role. one brave monkey 10:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant character, acceptable sourcing. GlassCobra 11:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; sufficiently sourced and a significant character is a notable work of fiction. Satisfies every requirement I know of. Per nom's comments, its role in the movies is irrelevant; all we care about are the books and the article suitably focuses on this. 23skidoo (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Well sourced?" Lets look at the sources.

The first citation is a link to Third Age. We're not supposed to cite ourselves.

Three of the citations are for Tolkien's books, and one cites the film. This does not establish notability.

Four cite in-universe LOTR encyclopedias.

One is just citing an alternate name.

Two cite online stores just to prove certain merchandise exists.

These leaves two references that even begin to touch on real world notability. Nobody has shown that this is anything but an article with a lot of content on a minor character.--Remurmur (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Respectfully, I must disagree with the above. There do appear to be sufficient multiple sources independent of the films or the original novels that indicate this creature has some out of universe notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, despite the fact that WP:FICT is still a draft proposal and currently in flux. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- inherently notable; also unique. Possibility of adding comparison material regarding HPL-Mythos creatures. -- 62.25.109.196 (talk)

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.