Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings

The speedy keep closure by {{u|Remsense}} was premature and based on an untrue claim. The closure cited WP:SNOW, suggesting the nomination was poorly researched ("look a bit harder," "spun out of thin air"). However, extensive discussions at Talk:Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings#Is "Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings" a notable topic? (April 6–9, 2025) and Talk:Themes of The Lord of the Rings#Sexuality,_etc. (April 11–17, 2025) show I engaged editors (Halbared, Chiswick Chap, others), citing WP:NOTE, WP:COATRACK, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and proposing merging or deletion. Halbared supported AfD exploration, and no consensus for retention emerged. Per WP:AFD, a 7-day discussion is standard for non-frivolous nominations, especially for a Good Article with debated notability. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:This one was frivolous, for the reasons given. As you've said, one or two editors does not a consensus make—and merely one editor's trivial misinterpretations of site policy and essays does not a worthwhile AfD discussion make. Remsense ‥ 论 13:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::The closure seems appropriate, given the wholly spurious grounds stated for the AfD and the article's robust sourcing and depth of coverage of the topic based on multiple scholarly and literary sources. The assertion that I argued the article was a coatrack or fringe, etc, is wholly baseless. The IP has in addition been on a one-person crusade against the article since starting editing on Wikipedia, so the actual grounds are presumably personal dislike of the topic. If they continue in that vein, they will eventually get themselves blocked for disruptive editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Chiswick Chap’s claim of "spurious grounds" and robust sourcing is a valid perspective but merits debate, not early closure, especially given the article's Good Article status (WP:GA doesn't exempt AfD). Their assertion that I mischaracterized their position is incorrect, as the nomination reflects issues raised in prior discussions (e.g., overlap with Women in The Lord of the Rings). Per WP:AGF and WP:NPA, I respectfully request avoiding personal accusations of a "crusade" or motives, as my focus is policy-based, evidenced by two weeks of engagement. I seek neutral input, including from Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth, to evaluate reopening the AfD. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The substance of the speedy closure is you didn't demonstrate understanding of the plain meaning of the policies you were citing. There's no point asking others to continue deliberating on your arguments given we're going to draw from what WP:NPOV, WP:N etc. actually say instead, not what you confused them for saying. Remsense ‥ 论 15:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Per WP:AFD, a 7-day discussion is standard for non-vexatious nominations, and WP:SNOW requires clear consensus, absent here with minimal AfD comments. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The closure seemed perfectly appropriate to me. Very strange article to try and get deleted considering its robust sourcing and clear scope. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You're not entitled to unilaterally demand we argue based on what policies don't say. Please be more considerate of others' time—I'll only be engaging further if you address the fundamental issues raised with your conception of site policy or raise more cogent arguments based in it. As polite as your rhetoric is, the point is you're trying to remove an editor's work from the site and making extremely spurious arguments to that end, while so far ignoring pushback from more than a couple third parties. In terms of content arguments, I see only shallow, cherrypicked WP:OTHERCONTENT tries as your negative arguments—and a singularly implausible notion as to what level of sourcing is "up for debate" (read: worth having others engage with) for establishing notability (as opposed to clearly demonstrating it) serving as the lonely positive point of your case. A superficially polite tone doesn't suffice to quash others' objections about how you're going about this. Remsense ‥ 论 15:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you, Remsense, for clarifying your position. I respectfully disagree that the nomination was frivolous or based on policy misinterpretations. Discussions at Talk:Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings#Is "Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings" a notable topic? (April 6–9, 2025) and Talk:Themes of The Lord of the Rings#Sexuality,_etc. (April 11–17, 2025) involved {{u|Verbarson}}, {{u|Dimadick}}, {{u|Halbared}}, and {{u|Chiswick Chap}}. Only Chiswick Chap, the article's creator, consistently defended retention, while Halbared supported AfD exploration, and others were neutral or open to deletion considerations, indicating no consensus for keeping the article. This informed my AfD nomination, per WP:AFD's process for resolving such disputes. This AfD should be reopened for a full discussion, not closed after an hour. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Of course you disagree, but again, that doesn't itself compel others to humor your arguments. You continuing to stretch the extent to which others have (yet to) agree with you didn't work the first time, and it won't work the fifth time. Make better arguments or stop wasting others' time, please. If I'm taken by total surprise and someone else disputes the speedy close, then that would obviously itself be clear-cut evidence that it was hasty and your argument as written actually needs to be discussed, and I would convert my speedy keep to a !vote to that effect. Remsense ‥ 论 15:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I have never participated in an AfD, but I think the closure was premature. The discussion about the merits of the article and the merits of the AfD nomination should be done as part of the AfD itself, not in the talk page. Regarding the article itself, at first look I agree with IP that it looks quite FRINGE, and not mainstream at all. Vpab15 (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Are you seriously suggesting Queer or Feminist literary criticism is WP:FRINGE??? Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Again, there are only potential discussions if you haven't read the policies you're citing: WP:FRINGE is a guideline building on the policy WP:NPOV, which has next to no place as the central issue at AfD: in most cases it only comes into play deciding what to do when there are also notability issues, which there very clearly are not here. If you think an article is an unbalanced presentation of sources on a given topic, then put up the sources you're aware of that balance it. That's not what we delete articles over. Remsense ‥ 论 18:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Maybe other editors or I have valid arguments about the notability of the article or maybe we don't. I still don't think it is ok to preemptively close the discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I haven't seen one. Until then, it's plain stubborn to waste everyone's time because one individual decided they wanted to hold an article hostage with no justification. It's reductio ad absurdum, but why not perennially hold a spot for every article at AfD in case some hypothetical argument exists out there? If someone reopens this, I hope it's because an actual argument was made, not this handwringing tedium that's exactly what WP:SNOW was scribbled as an essay to point out. Remsense ‥ 论 18:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{u|Remsense}}, per your earlier comment (15:58), would you now consider converting your speedy keep to a !vote and allowing Vpab15 and others to participate in the AfD? 87.116.181.138 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::No, I meant exactly what I said in the above reply. If someone else deigns to reopen it, I hope they have an actual reason, not just an inkling someone out there could possibly themselves have a reason.

:::::::::::It's really telling you haven't even tried to salvage the substance of your fundamentally incommensurate argument yet—frankly, it is indication I made the right choice seeing nothing but wasted time behind cloying smiles here. This is my last reply here until someone posts something of substance—i.e. not merely handwringing. If someone reopens it, chalk me up for that !vote. Remsense ‥ 论 19:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:After looking at the article I see no good reason why it would be deleted.★Trekker (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Feel free to !vote on the page as it has been reopened @StarTrekker. Dracophyllum 09:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@{{u|Star Mississippi}}, @{{u|Tamzin}}, @{{u|Sandstein}}: I respectfully request the removal of page protection on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings, as I believe there’s insufficient evidence of a WP:CANVASS vio to justify it. The protection currently prevents me, the nominator, from participating in the discussion.

@{{u|Simonm223}} referenced a Reddit post on r/KotakuInAction ([https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/1jstlj5/wikipedia_page_about_sexuality_in_the_lord_of_the/]) as evidence of potential off-wiki canvassing. However, that post predates the AfD by several weeks and contains no call to action or mention of the AfD, making it irrelevant to the current discussion. Aside from my participation, there was a single short comment by another IP editor, which does not suggest brigading. My nomination was developed through prior discussion at Talk:Themes of The Lord of the Rings#Sexuality, etc., not off-wiki coordination. I understand the need to prevent disruption, especially given r/KotakuInAction’s controversial reputation, but the lack of evidence for WP:CANVASS suggests protection may be unnecessary. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:That's for the protecting admin, @Star Mississippi, to decide. While I don't see evidence of likely canvassed opinions, the offwiki disussion about this AfD makes the protection, in my view, at least defensible. As nominator, you have already had the chance to express your view, and frankly I don't see any possible response by you swaying the very clear consensus that has been formed. In my view, a SNOW closure would now be appropriate. Sandstein 11:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:I decline to lift it, but have no objection to any other admin doing so if they feel we're missing relevant contributions. Agree with @Sandstein that a SNOW would be due but since it has been done and reversed already, I'm not doing it. IP 87, it's time for you to move on from this topic as it's clear consensus is against your position. Star Mississippi 13:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@{{u|Star Mississippi}}, @{{u|Tamzin}}, @{{u|Sandstein}}, @{{u|Daniel Case}}, @{{u|Halbared}}, @{{u|Schazjmd}}: After waiting days to avoid rash responses, I’ve chosen not to pursue a WP:XRV against Star Mississippi’s page protection or a WP:DRV for Mushy Yank’s non-admin closure, as these are unlikely to change the AfD’s “keep” outcome, which I accept. However, the process was deeply flawed, reflecting Wikipedia’s inconsistent rule enforcement and admin bias, undermining its credibility.

Two premature non-admin closures—Remsense’s after one hour and Mushy Yank’s after three days—stifled debate, potentially silencing editors like Halbared, who leaned toward a merge vote (User_talk:Daniel_Case#Advice), or Schazjmd, who expressed curiosity but remained undecided (User talk:Schazjmd). Admins allowed this, despite WP:AFD’s standard seven-day discussion for non-frivolous nominations, which this was, based on three weeks of talk page engagement (diff1, diff2).

Worse, admins permitted strong “keep” voices like Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi and Simonm223 to dominate with multiple comments, including Fortuna’s QUOTEBOX comment, which risks appearing as a supervote and violates guidance against excessive formatting. Meanwhile, page protection silenced opposing voices like mine, preventing responses to these arguments or baseless canvassing claims. Simonm223’s Reddit post accusation was echoed at ANI ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184#87.116.181.138_edit-warring]) and Tamzin’s talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tamzin#Aggressive_IP]), yet Tamzin wisely avoided fueling these allegations. Such claims, left unchecked, likely deterred neutral editors like Halbared and Schazjmd from participating.

Star Mississippi and Sandstein’s comments—dismissing my contributions and endorsing a second WP:SNOW closure were unnecessary and un-admin-like, favoring one side over a fair process. There was no justification for truncating the AfD especially given the earlier disruptive non-admin closure. Wikipedia’s declining reputation stems from such uneven rule application. This is my final comment on this matter. 87.116.179.69 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:As a longtime editor who is allergic to instigating processes governing contested edits and behavior, I don’t have much experience with that side of it, so I don’t have much opinion on where this one falls in the norms. I do think there was no need for people to be hasty; this AfD was destined to fail on its merits anyway. On the other hand, the complaint rings hollow to me. I have had a lot of my time wasted on spurious referenda by highly motivated individuals who maximize the pain to others by their use of process and endless, tortured sophistry in its deployment and in their arguments, rather than recognizing the simple “I don’t like it” underlying their motivations. If, perchance, this referendum had succeeded, it wasn’t going to result in an obvious improvement to Wikipedia. (Sometimes referenda conclude in questionable results because a gaggle of supporters show up because they’re involved in perpetrating it, whereas few others are even aware it is happening due to the obscurity of the topic.) As a collaborative effort, Wikipedia is not just about the explicit rules. It ought to also be about respecting people’s time and effort. Therefore, spending gobs of time starting a dispute that could go either way in a fair fight is not a promising signal for others. The use of an IP address with no other edit history by someone who seems very knowledgeable about Wikipedia process adds to my lack of sympathy and, while I try to keep an open mind, it’s impossible not to consider some implications of that. It would not matter in this case, but in something closer to debatable, it may well, and I wouldn’t be able to tell how much. Strebe (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'll be honest, the only issue I have with long-term IP editors is that their edit history fragments every time they switch IP addresses. The IP address that started this AfD made its first edit, to a Tolkien related page, upset about the sexuality content, on the same day that Kotaku in Action made hay about it. That's the core of my "accusation" and it's factually verifiable against both the KiA thread linked in this AfD and the edit history for that IP address. What I cannot do is validate whether the IP ever made other edits on other IP addresses *before* that.

::With this being said, the reason why this AfD was closed down so quickly is because it never should have been opened to begin with. The topic is well sourced and the IP demonstrated no knowledge of how any of our notability policies operate. I hope they really do leave this issue alone going forward. I, for my part, will be keeping a closer eye on Tolkien pages. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)