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 Procedural Keep . We are still getting comments based solely on the original nomination. I'm going to relist it entirely. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE The new debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords (2nd nomination). Protonk (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional swords[edit]

List of fictional swords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Retarded list of swords made by nerds which is completely un notably, destroys wikipedias crediblity, and again, is ridiculous and pointless Rizla (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Plus, unmaintable list. --Numyht (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an extreme case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unsalvageable indiscriminate collection of information.--Boffob (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've tried on many occassions to maintain "List of fictional..." articles. Enforcing inclusion criteria on these articles is an effort in futuility. Allowing all fictional instances to exist creates a worthlessly large list, reducing it to notable instances creates a worthlessly short list. -Verdatum (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, obvious bad-faith nomination tainted by gross incivility. This despite the fact that there exists an appropriate category that is probably better suited than this list. Powers ^T 23:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unmaintainable list of indiscriminate information. Also, linking multiple works of fiction without a secondary source is original research. Any fictional sword that meets the inclusion criteria on its own should be in a category rather than a list. Jay32183 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Powers. Nomination is as low on reasons as it is high in pointless incivility. This list organizes the subject in a way that a category never could. Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep' - Article appears to be two years old, has alot of information (although needs a decent introduction) and the reason for deletion stated merits keeping the list in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If this list has problems, one solution is clean up, not deletion. Sometimes people mistakes AfD for clean-up. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nomination boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's not unmaintainable-- obviously there are people who care very much about the subject. Nor is it indiscriminate. Nor is it unsalvageable. God help us if all of these fictional swords should each get their own separate article to necessitate a category. And certainly it is not "retarded", "made by nerds", "ridiculous", "pointless". Most importantly, it is not destructive of Wikipedia's credibility; in fact, it illustrates the strength of Wikipedia in having multiple contributors work on subjects that not everybody is interested in. Whether one likes it or not, authors of fantasy fiction go to great lengths in describing weaponry as part of the detail that goes in to such work. I don't particularly care for fantasy epics-- I'd rather have sci-fi or a political thriller any day. But I'm not going to describe someone who doesn't like what I like as nerdy or retarded. The only knock against this that I can see might be "original research", although there are some instances where we don't need to know which page of the paperback book had the description of the sword. Mandsford (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I admit, the nomination is poorly supported and extremely uncivil, but the article contains no lead selection criteria per WP:SAL, the article contains no secondary sources that justify the signifigance of the items described. Relying soley on the primary source (the work of fiction itself) means the list is an aggragate of plot which Wikipedia is "not". If this article survives AfD, I'll try cleaning it up to just Swords that have the potential to satisfy the GNG...afterwards, it is extremely likely that anonymous IPs will slowly restore it to the same unachievable, unreasonable, and uninformative "This list must be complete!" state. -Verdatum (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The lack of sources can be overcome with editing as can the lack of a lead section. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue isn't a lack of sources listed in the article. There is a lack of real world sources unifying swords from different works of fiction. Simply listing every sword that has ever been in a work of fiction is as unmaintainable as a list of works of fiction. Jay32183 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fully aware AFD isn't cleanup, my point was what Jay32183 said, sources that go beyond a passing mention just don't exist for nearly every entry except for those in mythology. I went through every entry in Category:Fictional swords. About a third of them don't appear to meet the GNG, another third of them only reasonably have an article because the span a series of works by a single author, and the remainder are swords in mythology. I would be fine with an article on List of swords in mythology or List of mythological swords. -Verdatum (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not only is the nomination not rooted in policy, this article can be cleaned up to be a solid entry. It can be written in table format listing the work of fiction it came from, any visual characteristics and any powers. (Which would mean it does more than a category). - Mgm|^(talk) 05:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Please review WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thanks. JBsupreme (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Which part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE do you believe applies here? "Frequently asked questions", "Plot summaries", "Lyrics databases", "Statistics" or "News reports"? I know that plot summaries might seem to be the best answer of those five, but I don't think the section describes the indiscriminate list. I think that the guideline that applies would be contained in WP:LIST. Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - I do believe the 5 points of WP:IINFO are just examples of indiscriminate information, not the only possible kinds of indiscriminate information. The first line is a direct link to WP:N, the general notability guidelines, and few of the swords listed actually pass that. One could also invoke WP:NOTDIR, because fictional swords are pretty loosely associated and once you start adding games and mangas, it does become unmanageable. How many named zanpakutos are there just in Bleach (manga)?--Boffob (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - How is it an indiscriminate list? Since when did "made by nerds" or "ridiculous and pointless" become deletion criteria. This is WP, compleatly made by us nerds! Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quite good list of notable swords in notable fiction., All of these will have sources with the original work,so this should be no problem, as w the work itself is the best source for the content in it. Perfectly manageable, like any other article people work on. If limited to notable fiction here not the least indiscriminate-0-listing every sword there ever was in any fiction is the meaning of indiscriminate. It may well be there is enough infomation of many of them to make articles for individual ones, but this can be developed later. The other arguments in the nom are mere abuse, and not worth answering.
• Delete Problems with WP:RS sink this for me. The redlinks don't help, either. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak, garabge WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Several notable fictional swords from various well-known stories or other forms of media. It looks like it needs cleanup, so either take a few minutes to fix it or stop calling everything retarded. SashaNein (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTDIR This article should be a directory page linking to more specific lists (e.g. Fictional swords in Asian Folklore, Modern Western Fantasy, Video Games, and so on), as per WP:SALAT. FluridCube (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So if you believe that it should be "a directory page" how can that be a delete !vote? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is a grease-trap for all kinds of crap. Better to just remove the whole list. TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 15:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This list seems to exist for the sole purpose of nerds putting swords from their favorite obscure fantasy books in it.70.17.213.197 (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this please a directory of fictional swords is very useful to aficionados who have an interest in this field. It looks manageable to me and I do not see any benefit from removing this from the Wikipedia archives. I also don't think it is necessary to mischaracterize those who have an interest in this subject matter, it is a valid area of research. —comment added by MY MOM WONT LET ME EAT AT THE TABLE WITH A SWORD. (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete RickoniX (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You provide no reason for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:IINFO applies rather well here. Voxish (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.163.227 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's useless, unmaintainable, and, most of all, WP:IINFO 129.7.251.3 (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but trim to notable swords that are sourced in RS's. Don't throw out things like Stormbringer and Excalibur with the rest of the listcruft. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not like those articles will be deleted along with the list. If stripped down to only swords that meet the GNG and have their own articles, we'll still be left with a bare directory because no one has brought up a sources to unify these sword or discuss the general concept of swords in fiction. If that is the case we are much better served by a category than an article. Jay32183 (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, of course not, and I didn't mean to imply that I thought they would be. Rather, I think a good list article can be constructed using solely swords that are themselves notable fictional elements, and not simply "named blades" from notable fiction. Categorization would be an OK outcome, but doesn't dissuade me from the notion that such a good list article can probably be constructed. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 82.41.207.239 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You provide no reason for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per FluridCube and others. drseudo (t) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:IINFO and WP:FANCRUFT. Eklipse (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the number of scholarly studies devoted the arms and armor of the Arthurian mythos, it's clear that fictional weapons, of which this is a subdivision, is a notable subject. Ditto for just about every mythology and hero cycle out there. Keep and clean up. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree the subject itself is notable, the issue is how can this article be cleaned up without being turned into the mess that it is again. Fictional swords is just too wide a category. Even when it comes to Excalibur, this article is complete garbage. Arthurian literature is by itself a vast subject, and I don't believe every story featuring Arthur or Merlin mentions the sword (though it's been a long time since I read Chrétien de Troyes, Robert de Boron and a bunch of anonymous medieval writers). That the list mentions only two recent popular authors is a clear sign of cruft. Might as well delete, refine the inclusion criterion into the list and start from scratch.--Boffob (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep — bad faith, uncivil nomination purely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedians need to refrain from using discriminatory/pejorative terms like "nerd," especially when nominating an article for AFD. Try again but with a better reason for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, to cover the base as to why this should be kept without addressing the nature of the nomination, this may be some trimming down and cleanup using verifiable sources, but I don't see a reason for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note for those who provided no reason behind their delete arguments, please read WP:AFD, especially the part where it says this is not a majority vote. MuZemike (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've just done a major edit of the article, removing entries that are not likely to possess independent 3rd party sources detailing the sword itself. I kept all entries that had either their own article, or section, or provided their own references (obviously none did). I also kept all the mythology sections in tact in good faith, as they are generally more likely to have sources, and those sources are less likely to be discovered through a mere websearch. My vote to delete has not change, and I'm sure if the article survives AFD, within two months, it will look miserable again. A list of swords in mythology would be much more informative, and I'd support any sort of merge in that direction. -Verdatum (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for your efforts. It's an improvement, although I bet it could be cut even a bit further. That's a much closer approximation of what I believe to be notable blades. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another indiscriminate list. Narrow the subject down and you could have several notable lists. Themfromspace (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmmm. Like a List of swords in mythology, List of swords in literature, and list of swords in games? I could see that. There might be a bit of overlap, but I think the mythology one is liable to stay cruft-free, and good inclusion criteria can be made for the last two, or however it should be split up. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A category of fictional swords for the notable ones (Excalibur, etc), a removal of the list for the rest. Totally pointless. -- Anationofmillions (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. McWomble (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who edits Wikipedia casting aspersions on "nerds" is a bit like pots calling kettles "black". Powers ^T 15:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and discuss possible division of the article on the talk page. The subject is evidently notable, and the contents approprite. The deletion ressons as given, are, of course, irrelevant. The contents of a list don't have to be individually notable-our coverage of popular culture such as this is what has made us credible in the first place, and continues to add to our creditability. a list limited to things that figure in notable fiction as defined by WP articles is not indiscriminate, but rather the opposite. As for what was removed from the article, I disagree, but we can discuss about adding them back later on. I did not initially comment on this afd because I thought the nomination hopelessly absurd, and I am surprised to see people taking it seriously. DGG (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: This was originally closed as Delete by User:MBisanz, but was relisted per this discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - uncivil nomination notwithstanding, the article is not sourced and is outside the project's scope. Óðinn (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a List. Sources and References should appear on individual sword Articles, not in the List Article itself. this is standard practice for lists, (eg. List of restaurant chains). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCES does not grant lists such an exception; WP:LIST states that "the verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material". Óðinn (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats reason to be bold, not a reasonable deletion reason. Your tossing the baby-with-the-bathwater. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up - Nomination fails to give coherent reasons; topic is a generally notable subject, and clear criteria could be established to keep the list from being indiscriminate. As it stands, the article is terrible, but I'd be willing to help clear it up. (First task: get some proper references for Excalibur - I have these. Second task: Include Durandal.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean - All the arguments not withstanding, the comments about this being "retarded" and "unencyclopedic" fail to address the issue that, unlike most inanimate objects, swords in classic literature often take on the role normally filled by a major character, and in doing so, they embody symbolism and archetypes critical to the story being told. Thus, a valid literary argument can be made for keeping the list. The current state of the list, however, could use some vast improvement, with references to how the listed swords figure in the fictional works that feature them. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nomination makes it impossible to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Raitchison (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2008 (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.