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 delete as non-notable and promotional. Sandstein (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Swords[edit]

The Sword of Swords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article seems to be a page about a sword that was created by the sword maker. The only notability is that it claims to be in the book of records however I cannot find anything to reference it. It should be noted that the user has removed unreferenced and notability tags added to the page since it was created, which is why I didn't prod it. Google only turn up references to the sword by the author on his own website and over all it seems be NN. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 18:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why we need it.-- Barkjon  19:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Seems like a made up fictional idea. Dwilso 19:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep' This article is notable. A quick google search for "Most swallowed sword" turned up this page: [1]. Seems notable enough. It might need a little wikifying but it should stay. Nevermind. I just realized all the sources I looked at were invariably the same person with several domains, usernames, and self-references. Delete due to lack of notability.--Dustinmacdonald (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  did you mean to write <s></s>? I'm confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protonk (talk • contribs) 05:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find this hard: while I was prepared to have the article edited unmercifully, I wasn't prepared for the continual attacks on it's notability. It is true that there is not much on the internet about this record but the internet is not the source of all knowledge, it is just the source of all knowledge that people have taken the trouble to put on the internet.
  

I have provided links to the official sword-swallowers' association (SSAI) and to the Guinness World Records site. It is depressing to see how many of those who attack this page cast a cursory glance at the links, don't find what their looking for and gleefully race back to cry "destroy!" So far, neither the SSAI or Guinness World Records have received any requests for confirmation. (Not to mention the 33 sword swallowers, most of whom are easily found on the net, that would be proud to attest to their involvement.)

Quick aside to IG: The original article did not claim that the sword is in the book of records. In fact you changed it to say that: the original article claimed that its record status was recognised by Guinness. They are not the same thing.

Being the owner of the sword and the original poster of the wikipedia article I am being accused of providing self-referencing information but that's exactly what you're doing by saying "I can't find it on the internet so it can't stay on our part the internet". Have any of you thought to follow up off the web? Emails? Phone calls?

While I am sure that ImmortalGoddezz's action is driven by a desire for accuracy, what on earth am I to make of those asking for deletion on the grounds that it "sounds fishy to me". Is Wikipedia governed by hunches? Do your research.

Would a jpeg of the Guinness Record certificate satisfy you, or would it be ruined by the fact that it was provided by me?

I feel I have provided ample evidence for the validity of this article (for anyone serious enough to do some real research) and whatever the wikipedia community decides about the sword-swallowing community's article (not just mine) I urge all of you to ask yourselves if you have done all the research you can before destroying other people's contributions. SwordSwallow (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - those who want to add information to Wikipedia are responsible for providing independent, reliable sources, both to make the article verifiable and to show notability. Notability hasn't been shown. Of course offline sources (such as newspaper articles) might be used, but I wouldn't even know where to look for them. Emails and phone calls obviously don't count as reliable sources. Huon (talk) 13:12, 26 April 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.