Talk:The Individuated Hobbit

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 October 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Middle-earth Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

The two sources cited are both brief mentions in works on other topics, not thorough reviews. The fact that no Tolkien scholar has seen fit to review the book, or even analyse it in depth, says that the book is not independently notable. It gets a brief mention (to say that one of its claims is wrong) in the section on Pia Skogemann's analysis in Psychological journeys of Middle-earth (that doesn't make it notable either), so rather than hanging a "Notability" tag on this sorry stub for the next ten years, I'll simply redirect there now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested. Tolkien scholar Thomas Honegger called it "the unsurpassed standard work on the subject" (2019). This is a direct assertion of notability. Notability does not require the work to be entirely about the topic, and direct assertions like this are indications of notability. Use AfD if you really must. -- GreenC 16:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires more than passing mentions; it also requires multiple sources with substantial coverage, where multiple is generally taken as at least three, and even that is a minimum. Currently we have zero substantial sources, so AfD it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]