521:
are all "List of fictional X" articles. Is a list the best way to convey this information? Lists tell you nothing about the significance of the entries. (I think of lists as only being directories to related WIkipedia articles.) Is it instead time to write a real article, that would properly survey the literature and give the reader the symoblic and practical effects of swords in fiction, instead of a catalog of video game props? We do love listcruft on
Knowledge (XXG) as apparent from the discussion to this point. --
416:: list can be maintained and prevented from becoming unmanageable(like the current version). It's hard to maintain is no more of a reason to delete it than deleting "Criticism of X" articles from becoming similar dumping grounds for every drive-by critique of a subject in history. We hold on to Criticism articles because it is possible to make them NPOV and to remove extraneous criticism even though no one does, so holding to this standard I'm maintaining we keep this article since it can be managed as well. --
264:. Counter-arguments: (1) notable ficswords are quite well discussed in critique texts. If you cannot find such discussion, i.e., nobody discussed it, then it is not notable outside the particular ficworld. (2) Liat is better than category, has a brief description. (3) I am sure that people who add new swords are newbie teenagers eager to say something. Educating them without mockery (such as LOOKIE!!! above) will serve for better of wikipedia, although it seems kinda nuisance. 17:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
520:
There was no holy consensus on the last two AfDs. I think my biggest problem with the article is not its subject matter, but it's list-ness. An article "Swords in fiction" would be plausible and support most of the functions of this list. But if the list stands, it'll be a perpetual cruft magnet, as
535:
Should have checked Google
Scholar before - when I search "swords in fiction" I have yet to find an overview of the general role of swords in fiction. Surely Google Scholar would have turned up one or a few theses, but sampling the first dozen pages shows lots of discussion about individual works
237:
Over the last two years the editing history of the article has been a cyclic pruning back entries to notable swords, then a bunch of excited contributions in the "SEE!!! LOOKIE!!! LOOKIE!!! THERE WAS A SWORD IN THERE SO I CAN PUT IT ON THIS LIST " mode, then more weary pruning. Swords in mythology
293:
consider me officially surprised. I would have expected an article entitled "List of fictional swords" to be a horrible crapdump with every single video game and webcomic shoehorned in there somehow. Shockingly, this is a tight little list and actually has sources. Less shockingly, it actually
217:
Fictional swords cannot be easily researched because the only source is the primary one of the fiction in which they are embedded. Fictional swords rarely have notability independent of the fiction of which they are part. After nearly two years there's still no independent sources discussing
233:
Individual fictional swords are not often notable by themselves, and sources that merely list the existence of a fictional sword in passing are not in-depth coverage such as critical commentary or discussion. While a discussion of the symbolic role of swords in fiction would be a verifiable
485:
again, and trim any cruft as desired. While this user's nomination is clearly in good faith, we've been here before, and the consensus was that a trimmed list of notable swords is indeed appropriate. I don't see that having changed.
89:
84:
79:
183:
559:- I'm sort of neutral on this one, as it's one of the few "List of fictional x" articles that both seems to have a case for notability and has been trimmed to essentially notable entries. Nothing like abominations such as
238:
get schlarly attention; swords in random modern fiction, video games and films of the last couple of years are not going to have reliable sources about them. There is an overlap between this list and other lists such as
536:
with swords in them, but no unifying discussion of the role of the sword in fiction overall.If no-one is writing about this, is it a notable concept? If we unify disparate fictional works here, is this
435:
74:
222:; the entries have nothing in common aside from being swords in fiction, which makes it a list of trivia. Reducing the list to notable instances produces a list that is uselessly small.
144:
177:
360:, so there is some interest in this subject. The question is whether there there is any research in fictional and mythological swords, to base a wikipedia article upon.
461:
214:
3rd nomination, first had a procedural close due to improper form, second was closed as no consensus. Previous arguments for deletion are paraphrased here.
117:
112:
121:
503:- As said above it's a good counterpart for the category about fictional swords, and it's a well enough written and sourced article to stand on it's own.
391:. Closer please to disregard any arguments based on the article's current or historical content, and attend only to arguments based on its potential.—
104:
229:. There is a lack of sources unifying swords from different works of fiction, leading to this article being an aggregation of plot summaries which
597:
580:
549:
530:
512:
495:
476:
450:
425:
408:
369:
343:
321:
255:
57:
572:
198:
218:
fictional swords. Allowing any fictional instance of a sword is an overly-broad criterion and will produce an unmanageably large and
165:
17:
404:
280:
298:
terrible until a recent cleanup flushed out the worst parts. It's still an overly broad and unmaintainable list, BUT I think a
564:
159:
108:
243:
612:
36:
349:
302:(non-list) article would be excellent, and this could be a starting point toward that if anyone feels up to the task.
155:
384:
226:
299:
205:
611:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
353:
100:
63:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
560:
576:
239:
334:
but it's just a redirect to a list and no-one has yet expressed enough interest to start a real article. --
268:
568:
508:
545:
526:
339:
251:
171:
421:
400:
365:
276:
593:
331:
191:
491:
219:
504:
472:
446:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
541:
522:
335:
247:
53:
388:
230:
417:
392:
361:
272:
537:
589:
303:
487:
468:
442:
138:
330:
You can see what the edit history is; the video game swords come and go. We have
357:
49:
605:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
90:
Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords (4th nomination)
85:
Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords (3rd nomination)
80:
Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords (2nd nomination)
436:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
234:
encyclopedia topic, this list is not that discussion.
134:
130:
126:
190:
204:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
615:). No further edits should be made to this page.
75:Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords
8:
462:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
456:
430:
225:The list is somewhat redundant with the
460:: This debate has been included in the
434:: This debate has been included in the
72:
565:List of fictional medicines and drugs
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
244:List of mythological objects#Swords
70:
24:
1:
598:17:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
581:23:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
550:15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
531:14:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
513:18:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
496:17:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
477:15:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
451:15:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
426:23:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
409:18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
370:19:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
344:17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
322:17:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
256:16:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
58:22:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
350:List of mythological swords
632:
352:(should it be merged with
300:Swords in myth and culture
385:category:Fictional swords
227:Category:Fictional swords
608:Please do not modify it.
561:List of fictional toxins
354:List of fictional swords
101:List of fictional swords
64:List of fictional swords
32:Please do not modify it.
240:List of magical weapons
231:Knowledge (XXG) is not.
569:List of fictional cats
69:AfDs for this article:
518:Comment by nominator
383:as a counterpart to
332:Swords in mythology
291:Weak delete, but...
220:indiscriminate list
44:The result was
588:as per Jclemens.
479:
465:
453:
439:
407:
285:
271:comment added by
623:
610:
466:
440:
399:
397:
319:
316:
313:
310:
284:
265:
209:
208:
194:
142:
124:
34:
631:
630:
626:
625:
624:
622:
621:
620:
619:
613:deletion review
606:
393:
317:
314:
311:
308:
266:
151:
115:
99:
96:
94:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
629:
627:
618:
617:
601:
600:
583:
554:
553:
552:
515:
498:
480:
454:
428:
411:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
325:
324:
304:Andrew Lenahan
287:
286:
212:
211:
148:
95:
93:
92:
87:
82:
77:
71:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
628:
616:
614:
609:
603:
602:
599:
595:
591:
587:
584:
582:
578:
574:
573:70.80.234.196
570:
566:
562:
558:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
534:
533:
532:
528:
524:
519:
516:
514:
510:
506:
502:
499:
497:
493:
489:
484:
481:
478:
474:
470:
463:
459:
455:
452:
448:
444:
437:
433:
429:
427:
423:
419:
415:
412:
410:
406:
402:
398:
396:
390:
386:
382:
379:
378:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
346:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
327:
326:
323:
320:
305:
301:
297:
292:
289:
288:
282:
278:
274:
270:
263:
260:
259:
258:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
235:
232:
228:
223:
221:
215:
207:
203:
200:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
157:
154:
153:Find sources:
149:
146:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
91:
88:
86:
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
607:
604:
585:
556:
517:
505:Mathewignash
500:
482:
457:
431:
413:
394:
380:
307:
295:
290:
267:— Preceding
261:
236:
224:
216:
213:
201:
195:
187:
180:
174:
168:
162:
152:
45:
43:
31:
28:
542:Wtshymanski
523:Wtshymanski
358:Magic sword
336:Wtshymanski
248:Wtshymanski
178:free images
418:AerobicFox
395:S Marshall
362:Loggerjack
348:There are
273:Loggerjack
590:Edward321
469:• Gene93k
443:• Gene93k
488:Jclemens
356:?) and
281:contribs
269:unsigned
145:View log
557:Comment
184:WP refs
172:scholar
118:protect
113:history
389:WP:CLN
156:Google
122:delete
50:JohnCD
571:...--
540:? --
538:WP:OR
199:JSTOR
160:books
139:views
131:watch
127:links
16:<
594:talk
586:Keep
577:talk
546:talk
527:talk
509:talk
501:Keep
492:talk
483:Keep
473:talk
458:Note
447:talk
432:Note
422:talk
414:Keep
387:per
381:Keep
366:talk
340:talk
277:talk
262:Keep
252:talk
192:FENS
166:news
135:logs
109:talk
105:edit
54:talk
46:keep
567:or
467:--
441:--
315:bli
296:was
242:or
206:TWL
143:– (
596:)
579:)
563:,
548:)
529:)
511:)
494:)
475:)
464:.
449:)
438:.
424:)
368:)
342:)
318:nd
312:ar
309:St
306:-
283:)
279:•
254:)
246:.
186:)
137:|
133:|
129:|
125:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
56:)
48:.
592:(
575:(
544:(
525:(
507:(
490:(
471:(
445:(
420:(
405:C
403:/
401:T
364:(
338:(
275:(
250:(
210:)
202:·
196:·
188:·
181:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
158:(
150:(
147:)
141:)
103:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.