Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vorpal sword

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 redirect to Jabberwocky. ✗plicit 11:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vorpal sword[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This object has no detailed coverage in reliable third party sources as required by the WP:GNG. There are only passing mentions which aren't enough for significant coverage and Notability. Tried to remove this content through the WP:PROD process but it was reverted with no effort to address the reason for deletion. Jontesta (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just a random word in a poem. No notability on its own has been asserted Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jabberwocky, where it is already briefly covered in the discussion of the made-up words in the poem. There's really no reason for this to be WP:SPLIT into a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jabberwocky. One article per nonsense poem is enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

although as one of the great nonsense poems..... Coolabahapple (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jabberwocky, possibly with expansion (ie. including other occurences eg. D&D, alice video games - American McGee's Alice, Alice: Madness Returns), after all, it is a unique word that is now a well known part of the english language. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jabberwocky. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I can't find significant coverage of that phrase by multiple independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG, but its use in the (in)famous poem about the Jabberwocky makes for a reasonable redirect to that page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jabberwocky. There is some mergeable content. I concur the current sourcing does not seem sufficient to keeping this as a stand-alone article. Note that the Russian and French wiki articles are longer, but it's just a WP:IPC-violating list of various media that mentions this. Italian is the best given the section it:Vorpal#Nella_cultura_di_massa but I don't think it's exstensive enough and refeenced enough to warrant keeping this (but if anyone wants to save this, it may be a starting point). Sadly, for now no WP:SIGCOV required to keep this as a separate article has been found. Ping me if this changes and I'll reconsider my vote.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. For a glimpse into Wikipedia's past (and for ideas where else vorpal swords are mentioned), consider this massive version full of uncited pop culture references. —Kusma (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma This is still Wikipedia's present in hundreds of articles... we list them here occasionally, multitude still remain. When we are lucky, they end up properly rewritten. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jabberwocky. Vorpal Swords in Dungeons and Dragons and related FRPG/Computer games[1][2] might be worth a mention in the media section there but I am not seeing enough of that here to make it worthwhile merging over. I guess if sufficient sourcing were found on that specific aspect it could be the subject of a standalone artlce in this namespace? Artw (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2022 (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.