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.
Delete and transwiki. No independent sources so fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's one RPGnet review now, added with significant rewriting - and the review's definitely not a love-fest. Don't know how much that counts as independent, but it seems like a fair review to me. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The review is definitely independent and by a notable game designer who was doing mostof his work at the time for a rival gaming company. Not sure if his status was free-lance at the time. --Smcmillan (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to straight-up Keep, thanks to all the changes that have been made in the past few days. BOZ (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your theatrical change of vote fools no one: you created this article in the first place, and your vote was always going to be a keep. None of the sources that have been added are reliable, and notability is still unproven. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Touchy? You'll notice I haven't added anything to the article recently. Honestly, when this AFD started I figured it would be a goner and no one would care enough to do anything for it which is the main reason I said anything about redirecting, but obviously I was proven wrong - a great deal of effort has gone into this article in an attempt to save it, and you'll see me thanking people all over the place in this discussion because of it. I applaud their efforts, even if you're worried that this may be one more AFD that you'll lose. (And if you're not worried, then why comment at all?) If people honestly believe that my vote was "always going to be a keep", then the closing admin will see through anything I have to say and discount my opinion, and if not then I will be afforded the same respect that any other editor deserves. Maybe one day, I'm hoping and praying, you will learn that just because Gavin says it is so, does not mean it is so. My experiences with you over the last few months have not borne that out yet, but only time will tell. BOZ (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have awarded you the Barnstar of Recovery for your excellent theatrical performance. If you give up spamming articles with no content, context, analysis or evidence of notability, such as this one, I am sure you will have promising future on the stage.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, talk about theatrics. I'm really not even taking this as seriously as you are. But thanks for the award anyway, it's nice and shiny and looks good on my talk page. :) BOZ (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, does not seem to be notable as it's own article and is well represented in the list. Perhaps merge some fo the main information to the list - Dumelow (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Suggestion Someone needs to figure out if this should be the artifact, the module or both. Frankly I'd go with a disambiguation page, and point to the list of artifact and the list of modules (at least until someone writes an article on the module which likely meets WP:N.). Hobit (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be an article about both - the article came first (1979?), and the module came as a result of the artifact's long-standing history within the game (1999?). BOZ (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Hobit's suggestion: merge to two different pages and turn this into disambiguation. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are you going to address the notability concerns? Jfire (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By no longer having a separate article dedicated to the subject. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing it should definitely not be is split - there's just not anywhere near enough notability to sustain them as separate items. BOZ (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's notable enough to warrant a disambig page, either. I think we should simply redirect to one or the other, and then make sure that the redirect target is well wikilinked to the other instance. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll disagree. As there is both an item and a module, and we are redirecting to lists, I think we're fine with a disambiguation page. If we are willing to do a redirect, we should be willing to do a disamb. independent of notability. Hobit (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Anyone willing to fix this up? The module has no problems meeting notability requirements IMO, but the artifact I'm less sure of. BOZ, if you want to keep them together, the article needs some work... Hobit (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what to do for it honestly. I'll try to take a look at it and see what, if anything, I can do. BOZ (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the oldest mentioned artifacts in the original D&D system (goes back to the Eldridge Wizardry supplement, per Jon Pickens and the Encyclopedia Magica). I'll try to define this a bit. BusterD (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Does the intro fix help? BusterD (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does look a whole lot better at least, thanks. :) As far as how much that will matter... we'll see, I guess. BOZ (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Artifacts are tough to destroy/delete anyway. Gotta throw it into the volcano in which it was made, or break it with a footstep of the humble ant (per DMG). I was wondering how anybody was ever going to close this AfD (Axe for Deletion) discussion without so much as a Mordenkainen's Disjunction. (Does English Wikipedia even have an admin who can cast 9th level wizard spells? Maybe German Wikipedia...) BusterD (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the tags for issues which have been addressed. Since notability was listed in nom for deletion, I'll not remove that until this discussion is closed, one way or the other. BusterD (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - you and others have done some awesome work! It's almost completely unrecognizable from its previous form. BOZ (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'd like to point out I correctly predicted the potent magic of the Axe would prevent a hasty closing of this AfD. BusterD (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. :) But it's not safe yet... BOZ (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a sufficient amount of material that can be included in the article as it is well-known in D&D circles since practically its beginning. The One Ring from The Lord of the Rings has its own page along similar reasoning. «D. Trebbien (talk) 22:26 2008February 3 (UTC)
Merge and redirect, keeping info for GPDL reasons. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to say Merge but there seems to be enough information to support a full article, and there is at least one reliable secondary source. --Smcmillan (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional artifact outside of Dungeons & Dragons. Six of the seven sources cited originate from the game publishers (TSR and Wizards of the Coast) except one self-published review, which was written by a S. John Ross who has worked for the publishers. The majority of the article is plot summary with a heavy in-universe perspective that fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF, which means that this article falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that citation of S. John Ross for review of the adventure module Axe of the Dwarvish Lords cannot be classed as a reliable secondary source, since it deals with the source material (an adventure module or book of the same name). Assertions that this souce is evidence of notability is misleading, since the reference to the fictional axe itself is trivial in nature. As this fictional artifact only receives a passing mention in the review, the artifact still fails WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So by your reasoning the only reliable secondary sources in the featured article Cortana are those that specifically focus on the character of Cortana, not the Halo games? And since those sources are on websites that you would probably (given previous arguments of yours) classify as "fansites," they aren't reliable either. I guess you should go slap a notability tag on Cortana then. Why don't you go do that?--Smcmillan (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Non-notable; mention in List of D&D Axes or a list of your choice. Second choice; throw it into The Cracks of Doom. --Jack Merridew 14:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a notable fictitious artifact with a long history of publication, and third-party sources exist. Merging it into List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, while a sensible option at first glance, would be counterproductive on account of the length of the article and the amount of information it contains. Typically, subsections this long are split off from articles, rather than merged into them. This is long enough to warrant a page, and well written up, with the proper out-of-universe perspective. Freederick (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRYtalkcontribs 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
B-b-but the Axe of the Dwarvish Lords is notable! It is the most powerchful weaponth inth all of the landth of Golandia! It was craftedth by the mighty dwarventh warrior-god, Thalazarth, in the fairy caves of Antioch! It was used by the legendary hero, Zandara, in the destruction of the mighty red pearl dragon!
*rolls 1d20 and casts "Delete stupid article."* ☯Zenwhat (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to save my colleague editor from permanent embarrassment, I will on his request delete the above "argument" DGG (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, it was the best argument yet. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the best delete argument here; gets right to the point. --Jack Merridew 08:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WarningAny non-dwarf who holds the axe loses some of their vitality — I just hope that editing this article doesn't count as holding this axe; might be best to delete this article to avoid any further risk to non-dwarf wikipedians. --Jack Merridew 12:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be improved, but it has sufficient references to remain a distinct article. And as an aside, the trolling of BOZ's user talk page with a sarcastic barnstar w/ regards to this article was inappropriate.Shemeska (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still keeping it as a badge of honor though - regardless of the nonsensical circumstances in which it came about, it is my first. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you are not going to take the process here seriously then don’t participate. The Axe my not be the best article here, it may even be worthy of deletion, but the condescending attitudes of some editors here point are more to WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else they are trying say. Web Warlock (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has been improved over the course of the last few days and certainly more references could be found. Besides WP:WAF has never been a reason to delete an article. I would also accept a redirect but which article would be the best Modules or Artifacts? Web Warlock (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Webwarlock. The only deletion reason given was "non-notable", and the article asserts notability and includes references. Rray (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Iquander (talk) 06:53, 14 February 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.