Select Page

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

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 per WP:SNOW, that applies this time.. (non-admin closure) -Mushy Yank. 18:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:NOTE) for a standalone page and violates WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:COATRACK. It aggregates loosely related interpretations—feminist analyses (e.g., Shelob as vagina dentata), queer readings of Frodo/Sam, and non-sexual themes like friendship or heroic bonds—under a broad “sexuality” framework, creating a misleading synthesis that overemphasizes speculative perspectives not central to Tolkien’s work. Many cited sources (e.g., Partridge, Jaques) are niche within Tolkien scholarship, and reliance on primary texts (e.g., Tolkien’s letters) risks WP:NOR by inferring sexual themes not explicitly supported. Other content, particularly on gender dynamics, overlaps with Women in The Lord of the Rings.

While the article holds Good Article status (GA review, Sept. 2021), this reflects one reviewer’s assessment and does not override community consensus on notability or due weight. Sexuality is not a primary or widely recognized theme in The Lord of the Rings, unlike themes like heroism or good vs. evil, and the article’s 39k-byte scope gives WP:UNDUE weight to minority views, potentially inflating their prominence (WP:LIPSTICK).

I propose merging notable content to existing articles: vagina dentata symbolism to Shelob#Sexual monster, and queer perspectives to Themes of The Lord of the Rings#Debated themes, following precedents like Themes in A Song of Ice and Fire. Since Women in The Lord of the Rings already covers related gender themes, these merges would place content in more relevant contexts, eliminating the need for a standalone article. If merging is not viable, deletion is warranted per Wikipedia’s content policies. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: This nomination is based on prior discussions at Talk:Themes of The Lord of the Rings#Sexuality,_etc. (April 11–17, 2025) and Talk:Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings (April 6–9, 2025). 87.116.181.138 (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: is this the IP you blocked for User:Operahome's socking? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such aspersions are inappropriate. If you have concerns, please take them to the appropriate venue. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly an aspersion when two massive colored boxes appear on your own contributions page. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one box that I see, and it relates to another user in my IP range. Again, it is not appropriate to bring this up here, as it casts aspersions without addressing my arguments. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a large range; assume unrelated unless there's a behavioral connection. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's always surprising to see the quantity of LOTR articles, but it comes as a result of the impact that LOTR had on literature and the resulting hundreds of books and articles. The page is a good summary of sources on the topic, passed GAN, and should stay. Dracophyllum 09:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. I'm actually sympathetic to Ramsense, as the notability of the topic—which has been discussed in multiple academic books and journals—is clear to a blind man. While neither of their close rationales applied—meaning the close shouldn't have been made of course—frankly the nomination was as disruptve as the close. More so, in fact, as several edtors are going to have to defend an article that shouldn't need to be defended for the next 168 hours. Unless someone SNOW closes it of course. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE

RoySmith's essay may only be an essay, but it is an excellent rule of thumb for establishing the likelihood of notability. In the case of this article, some of such sources are used (and indeed some are currently not). For example

  • Craig, David M. (2001). "'Queer Lodgings': Gender and Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings". Mallorn (38): 11–18. JSTOR 45321703. (currently used)
  • Miller, T. M.; Miller, E. (2021). "Tolkien and Rape: Sexual Terror, Sexual Violence, and the Woman's Body in Middle-earth". Extrapolation. 62 (2): 133–156. doi:10.3828/extr.2021. (currently unused)
  • Partridge, B. (2008) [1984]. "No Sex Please—We're Hobbits: The Construction of Female Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings". In Giddings, Robert (ed.). J. R. R. Tolkien, this Far Land. Vision. pp. 179–197. ISBN 978-0389203742. (currently used)

To list any others would be beyond the scope of WP:THREE. Oh, alright then.

  • I agree that this was a disruptive AfD to open - it is entirely without merit and seems to be motivated by the discomfort of a few editors who would rather critics didn't explore Tolkien's work through this lens. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of proof this is a topic which has been explored in research and literary criticism, which we can make into an encyclopedic summary here. /Julle (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Love and marriage section overlaps significantly with Women in The Lord of the Rings, which covers gender dynamics and romantic relationships (e.g., Arwen/Aragorn, Éowyn/Faramir), rendering it redundant in a standalone Sexuality article, per WP:UNDUE. Similarly, feminist interpretations of Shelob in the Female monster section, such as vagina dentata symbolism, are already addressed in Shelob#Sexual monster, where they are more relevant. Including non-sexual themes like the officer-batman relationship and heroic friendship under a “sexuality” framework stretches the article’s scope, creating a WP:COATRACK and giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority readings. While scholarly sources exist, critics like Valerie Rohy note the “absence of sexuality” in The Lord of the Rings, suggesting these interpretations don’t warrant a standalone page. Merging to Shelob#Sexual monster and Themes of The Lord of the Rings#Debated themes better contextualizes this content. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't understand what WP:COATRACK means. An article can't be a coatrack for it's own expressed topic. Furtermore it's a serious violation of WP:NPOV to say that because a scholar doesn't see sexuality in a work therefore any scholar who does is wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the article (like sections "Tolkien's background" or "Love and marriage") has nothing to do with sexuality. The remaining either focuses too much on fan fiction or can easily be moved to other articles. The section "Female monster" should be moved to Shelob for example. I agree with nom that the article relies to much on what appear WP:FRINGE sources, whereas the mainstream consensus seems to be that there is an almost total absence of sexuality in the novel. Vpab15 (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please identify the fringe sources. Because I don't see any. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever wrote about "nongenital tactile intimacy between men". The article presents fringe ideas as mainstream and labels mainstream scholars that deny any sexuality is present in the novel as "critics". It is bad enough when an article uses WP:FALSEBALANCE to present a fringe view as equally valid. In this case, it is worse since the fringe view is given more weight than the mainstream one. Vpab15 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's flat nonsense. Because the quote comes with the following citation: Vaccaro, Christopher (2013) [2006]. "Homosexuality". In Drout, Michael D. C. (ed.). The J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia. Routledge. pp. 285–286. ISBN 978-1-1358-8033-0.
    Are you really trying to suggest that the Routledge-published J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia is a fringe source? Or that Christopher Vaccaro, a senior lecturer in English at University of Vermont for the last 25 years is unqualified to write about Tolkien scholarship? You should not be using WP:IDONTLIKEIT to decide what is fringe. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW here's Vacarro's bio. He's literally a Tolkien specialist. [1] Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    About J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, the article mentions quite a lot of criticism, like "the quality of entries can run the gamut from masterful to pedestrian". You are just doing appeals to authority. There are a lot of climate scientists that deny climate change, but we still consider their views as fringe. Vpab15 (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't just declare a specialist in the field fringe because you don't like what he says. That's not how WP:FRINGE works. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But, lest you think that's just me saying that I've raised the question at the Fringe theories noticeboard. Please see here. I provided a link to this AfD so that people with expertise in the Fringe policy can participate in this deletion discussion. I took care to frame the question neutrally. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wut Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a closer will give much weight to this empty comment by a dynamic IP with zero edit history. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this subject has been noted by multiple scholars and critics from soon after the novel's publication, as cited in the article, and they have expressed multiple points of view on it, as described and cited in the article's chapters. The subject is certainly notable, cited to a large number of reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There has been a lot of scholarship on The Lord of the Rings, so that even this subject which is less prominent than e.g. Heroism in The Lord of the Rings (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS...) has received way enough serious and reliable treatment to warrant a full article, easily fullfilling the notability requirements - as demonstrated by the existence of a sourced, GA article. To have various aspects of this topic in one article also makes sense to avoid several small separated ones. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see multiple secondary sources with titles that indicate they are specifically about this topic, indicating on even a cursory glance that the subject is notable. Perception312 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator appears to be saying that there is overlap between this article and other articles. Yes. In any topic area where there is a large body of scholarly literature (in this case, scholarly literature about a body of literature by a scholar), there will be overlapping content. See the guideline on content forks, and this article and the others cited by the nominator are acceptable and useful content forks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to note that Robert was involved in overturning the speedy keep of this AfD. Since these are separate issues, I see no problem with them casting a vote here, even though we disagree on the outcome of this particular discussion. Being able to collaborate with others means accepting that you'll disagree on some things and agree on others. If you're an independent thinker, you'll never agree 100% with anyone. Recognizing this is what makes collaboration meaningful. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Duh. An unregistered editor has just given an experienced editor permission to take part in this AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The arguments for deletion appear to be ideologically motivated. When policies are cited, the arguments for the relevance of the police amount to straw men, red herrings, or flat-out non sequiturs. In short, this AfD is a waste of time. Strebe (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the existence of this article just gives undue weight to a minority position. We're not here to document every viewpoint/analysis of Tolkien's work. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense; the article does not take any positive, minority or otherwise; it notes that multiple critics have discussed the issue, and describes in turn each of the conflicting positions they have taken, without favouring any of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree we should delete Liechtenstein, an article which gives undue weight to many viewpoints that have only been expressed by a tiny minority of country experts. We're not here to document every analysis relating to what countries are like, how they came to be, or why they exist in the first place. Remsense ‥ 论 14:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination is faulty as the nominator requested the article to be merged, not deleted. That's a different process. (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they've proposed both deletion and merging, on the same (spurious) grounds, and it makes sense to have just one discussion on the subject; WP:AfD says directly that "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." so this forum is understood to cover all those possible outcomes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article seems fine and none of the votes to delete seem reasonable. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 12:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously I can't close this because I'm quite involved but I know there's a couple admins watching this page at this point. Anyone willing to say this is a snow-close yet? So far the delete !votes have not cited any policy correctly and there's almost no delete !votes to boot. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The suggested policy violations aren’t violations. This seems to be a case of the nominator’s distaste for the topic.OsFish (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because of all the sources, which are sufficient to blow the case for deletion completely out of the water. Hi, all you redditors!—S Marshall T/C 08:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or as Cullen put it, "a handful of cranks bitching and moaning on reddit"  :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:38, 26 April 2025 (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.