Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Edge (weapon)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Edge (weapon)[edit]

Soul Edge (weapon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Proposing a merge of salvageable information into Soul (series),Proposing deletion (see below), because as a stand alone article on the blade will not have adequate discussion in third party sources (they simply don't exist). Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the second nomination for the article subject matter: the original subject matter was merely spliced directly into Inferno (Soulcalibur) after the deletion. Subject matter was not improved afterwards. Previous AfD can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons --Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything had been merged, then that article needs to be undeleted per the GFDL. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NO assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although there are lots of mentions of the weapon in articles, like the nominator said, the mentions are of a trivial nature and not substantial to the conception and the cultural/sociological impact of a fictional weapon. I highly doubt there is such information in the current article, so the article can be totally deleted without concerns. Any in-game description on the weapon can be gotten from the game or guides and need not be attributed to this article. Jappalang (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This is not a necessary article. JuJube (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this is being proposed for a merge, what is it doing here at articles for deletion? -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as nomination rationale is to merge, not delete, which is a separate discussion. Also, we're talking about a titular weapon that has been made into a real life replica steel sword. Few video game weapons have actually been made into purchaseable replicas or are titular. Astonishingly notable video game weapon (arguably one of THE most notable weapons) covered in profound number of reliable sources. Also, additional references and mergeable information can be found at this page. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't really references at all there that I'm seeing...at least nothing to confirm third-party notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm more than aware of that. However none of those are actively discussing the sword in a citable context. There's a difference between mentioning something in an article and discussing it even if briefly. Instead of blind links, show quotes that will be sufficient to get it to GA status through reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any search of reviews show enough comments on the sword to justify at worst a merge and redirect without deletion. To be honest, there are times when the topic is so obviously notable such as this where I feel that looking for and posting additional sources in the AfD is just unnecessary as something that is titular in nature, has appeared in multiple major games across a host of systems, and has even been made into a replica is simply notable by any reasonable standard by these achievements alone and thus should be covered in some capacity as clearly people come here to read about and work on this article. I cannot imagine any reason why at worst we would not merge and redirect without deletion or use the article for navigational purposes to comment in a concise manner on the differences of the sword across these games and as a replica. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered a career in politics? You dance around the issue enough for it. The problem isn't that Soul Edge isn't an important topic or not that could be worthy of an article, it's that third party discussion revolving around it doesn't exist in an adequate fashion. There's been a replica, dandy. But you brought that up in the previous AfD. How will discussions about the blade's changes bring any real-world relevance to the table? If you're so certain there are sources, please by all means introduce them yourself in the article, because talk is cheap.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought that maybe running for some office down the road could be worthwhile. Third party references exist in an adequate fashion for the paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You have presented no compelling reason as to why this article should be redlinked. In fact by bringing an article to AfD claiming it should be merged, you don't seem to understand how AfD works. I strongly suggest you withdraw this AfD, which should be speedy closed as keep. Finally, I and others have indeed already been improving the article during this AfD. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge — Le Grand Roi is correct. A merge proposal per WP:MERGE should be initiated, as suggested per WP:AFD guidelines. This is articles for deletion, not articles for discussion (at least not yet). MuZemike (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Transwiki to SoulCalibur Wikia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Banjeboi 14:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. There are a few reliable third-party sources that mention the weapon, but they offer only trivial facts about it such as that it's powerful, or that a character wields it. Not enough to WP:VERIFY the article's massive contents, and no significant facts about this topic are notable. In the alternative, I'd support a drastic clean-up of most of the information that doesn't meet WP:PROVEIT, and a merge with a brief summary into the main soul series article. Randomran (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:JNN is beyond not valid in this case when it is a titular weapon that has appeared in numerous major games and that is one of only a hanful that has been made in life-size replicas and that is discussed in secondary source reviews. As for the whole "so prove it" line; somethings are notable enough that if those wanting to delete cannot see the sources, then... After all, we don't have to prove Napoleon can be verified as anyone is able to find sources with ease. Similarly, I cannot imagine anyone not being able to find sources on this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I explained why this was not notable, so please do not misrepresent my position as "just not notable". This line of argument is completely unproductive: the Soul Edge is not Napoleon, and you can't just make up your own metrics for what is notable. In fact, that reinterpretation of notability was resoundingly rejected. It would be much more productive to actually address the article's failure to meet policy: the lack of reliable third party sources for this topic. Randomran (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Saying this is not notable and that reliable third party sources do not cover this topic is just dishonest. The majority of the community in practice, i.e. those who actually create and work on these articles and come here to read them believe them notabile, regardless of a vocal minority in any one talk page discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, per Randomran, who admits there are reliable third party sources that provide evidence for notability; the details can be taken from any reliable source--third party sources are not needed for content if uncontroversial and straightforward descriptive like this is. And per Kung Fu Man, who admits that the topic and could be worthy of an article; he is however wrong that it matters whether third party discussion revolving around it exist in an adequate fashion. All we need is enough good information from any source to write the article, once we now its important. DGG (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um...are we reading the same WP:N? Because it specifically states that's needed, and plenty of AfD's have revolved whether a subject can secure notability or not. The majority of the sources within the article to cite it properly would all be first party. There is no available information on the development of the sword save basic sketches amongst Nightmare's design bio. Right now not even *one* third party source discusses the subject in a fashion strong enough. Can you as an admin really say reception and development should be omitted because there are no sources discussing them?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And also forgive me for saying it, but you're skewing the facts: I can find an article saying someone wielded a rapier named Tiny Tim as a weapon, that does not validate an article called "Tiny Tim (weapon)". Nor does an article saying "Tiny Tim is powerful." Which is what Randomran stated existed for the subject in terms of third party coverage.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no reliable third party sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. That's why this is not notable. You're welcome to your own interpretation, but you're NOT welcome to misrepresent my argument to prove a point. Randomran (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is patently false and any honest search of sources reveals otherwise. It is notable, because it is one of only a handful of the millions of video game weapons to be made into a replica. It is notable because regardless of a few delete votes in a snapshot in time AfD, hundreds of readers and scores of editors have seen fit to volunteer their time over two years to work on this article. It is notable because the sword is a major part of a series that has also been made into a DC comic book. Thus, it is notable by any reasonable or logical standard of notability and I cannot imagine any reason why a paperless encyclopedia would not cover this verifiable information that is obviously significant in the context of video game culture. That a video game weapon would be made into a replica, appear in other media (comic book), etc. demonstrates real world notability and cultural influence/phenomenon. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOTABILITY is a Wikipedia guideline that has to do with reliable third-party sources, not whatever standard you feel like making up. Don't accuse me of spreading falsehoods and then simply start making up your own guidelines. You know what the notability guideline requires. You know what WP:BURDEN says about articles without reliable third party sources. You know better. Randomran (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article meets that guideline. Saying it doesn't is false. You know better. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, I don't know that I'm wrong, and you don't either. There still isn't substantial coverage by reliable third-party source. On the other hand, you DO know better, because you've been repeatedly warned against making up your own criteria (such as "multimedia makes it notable") which was resoundingly rejected. This is not the venue for proposing changes to longstanding guidelines, and you already know that. So just stop it. Randomran (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have never been warned in good faith or honesty by anyone. You are repeatedly making up your own criteria, which has been resoundingly rejected in practice. Instead of using AfD to propose changes to long standing guidelines, why not actually help to improve articles? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep but heavily cleanup by removing all excess material and actually using some of those reliable sources Le Grand Roi discovered above instead of using some asininely-described strategy guide. MuZemike (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Almost entirely WP:GAMECRUFT, largely fails WP:WAF. No independent substantial coverage of this game item alone (the gamercc interview will serve the SC IV article well, and I'm not considering tripe like the ScrewAttack reference as reliable.) Marasmusine (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when it isn't. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a good job that I didn't use the "its cruft" reason then. Please take another look at that essay, and then look at the reasons I cited (which detail the relevant policies and guidelines as ITSCRUFT suggests.) Marasmusine (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The idea that a titular weapon that appears in several games, toys, a comic, as a replica, is covered in numerous published strategy guides, and referenced in reviews is deletable "cruft" defies the imagination. Sometimes I can maybe see where people are coming from on the deletion side of these AfDs and I believe it worthwhile to grant them some deal of reasonability with their contentions, but times like this are another story. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand how a sword should be considered notable because a miniature version of it is packaged with an action figure of a character that wields it. That seems to be putting undue weight there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps if that was the only example of notability, but it is notable because not only is there a miniature version of it, but also a life size steel replica, and due to its titular appearance in several major games, a comic, etc. All of these factors combined make it notable and stand out from the typical game weapon. Only a handful of game weapons are titular. Only a handful have been made into toys and museum quality replicas. Only a handful are covered in multiple strategy guides. And so on. That obviously thousands of editors and readers come here for and believe Wikipedia covers this non-hoax, non-liberlous information is suggestive enough that at worst we would be doing our community a service by redirecting without deletion or merging, but I see no convincing reason why right now all work must stop and the article must be outright redlinked. That simply does not make any sense to me. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I'm stating that that shouldn't count as a bit for notability: should we start an article called "Azure armor" becuase he happens to be wearing that if other sources talk about azure armor? It's a "duh" reference: it's an action figure modelled after Nightmare. Why would it *not* be included with the character?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see no reason why not to redirect Azure armor to the character page for nightmare. And again, it's apples and oranges. Azure armor has as far as I know not also been made into a lifesize replica like Soul Edge has. Nor is Azure armor the TITLE of a game like Soul Edge is. Given the request for comment on notability, it is obvious that it is interpeted incredibly subjectively by the community and that the community has strong disagreements about it. I would much rather err on the side of being more informative and therefore useful (preemptively linking!) and comprehensive as a paperless reference guide than not. Surely given enough time and effort (more than the five day AFD ultimatum) we can eventually augment the reception section with even better comments from reviews on the descrition of the sword or reviews/previews of the toys/replicas. I see potential here and not a critical need to squash that potential this week. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, thought this page looked familiar :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with very little real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I will assume, for the sake of discussion, that Gamercc's interview constitutes work from a reliable source. I can, however, not agree that the other sources cited (a forum and two merchandise sites) are reliable. Even if those sources were reliable, the sum total of the content that could be attributed to them would be "models of the Soul Edge can be purchased whole or as part of nightmare". The discussion of the reliable source cited (insofar as it discusses Soul Edge the weapon, not Soul Edge the game) is minimal. And by minimal I mean it is a stretch of logic to claim that anything in that interview refers to "Soul Edge" the sword in any meaningful sense. The uncited but mentioned sources are published as works for hire by Brady games--their editorial control over selection of material is probably nil or close to it. As such I'm not inclined to treat those as possible sources conferring notability to the subject. Given this dearth of sourcing, I don't really have any choice but to say that the article doesn't meet the general notability guideline. No daughter guideline for fictional works has found consensus within the community, so we have no other inclusion criteria to turn to. The article itself represents in universe plot repetition and indiscriminate information. As such, this article should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Update: Article has now been satisfactorily improved enough to be at least merged and redirected without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources you can find do little more than confirm the item's existence. The only reliable third-party information is "the sword represents evil". I see no substantial coverage, as required by the GNG. Randomran (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can find plenty of sources and any honest search by anyone demonstrates substantial coverage to any reasonable editor. For once, I would like to see someone else actually use the relevant sources that are found with ease and add them to the article in question. To be honest, on this particular topic, the mere idea that Soul Edge is not notable by any stretch of the definition is outright laughable and I refuse to pretend otherwise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources then post them. Otherwise you're just being disruptive. If there are genuinely useful sources that can be built into the article I'd love to see them worked in there, because a suitable Soul Edge article would be nice for the featured topic project. As it stands though there's nothing suitable there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing an article to AfD with the proposal to merge is disruptive abuse of AfD. I strongly urge you to withdraw this nomination. Usually I do not mind presenting additional sources in discussions, but some topics are so easily sourceable from any reasonable searches that it is outright insulting to have to prove what anyone should be able to find for themselves. The idea that someone cannot at least merge information noting that the sword has been made into a replica as demonstrative of the influence of this article or that it could not at worst be redirected is outright baffling and I am not willing to humor such things. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kung Fu Man. Relying on proof by assertion, let alone proof ad nauseum, and repeatedly refusing to actually WP:PROVEIT according to our policy standards is disruptive. It's not personal or subjective. It's about constantly ignoring policy, despite repeated warnings to actually read WP:BURDEN. Randomran (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with common sense and logic. I rely on proof of simple Google searches that turn up reviews that mention the sword of that demonstrate the sword has particular notability for a video game weapon. Saying otheriwse is disruptive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google is not a reliable source, and will turn up TONS of sources regardless of reliability or independence. We can't find the sources. If you think they exist, find them. Don't ignore WP:BURDEN and filibuster good faith questions about where these sources actually are. Randomran (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and subsequent improvements demonstrating notability. Everyking (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:27, 5 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soul_Edge_(weapon)&oldid=1136108061"