Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords (3rd nomination)

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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional swords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

3rd nomination, first had a procedural close due to improper form, second was closed as no consensus. Previous arguments for deletion are paraphrased here.

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 fictional swords. Allowing any fictional instance of a sword is an overly-broad criterion and will produce an unmanageably large and indiscriminate list; 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.

The list is somewhat redundant with the Category:Fictional swords. There is a lack of sources unifying swords from different works of fiction, leading to this article being an aggregation of plot summaries which Wikipedia is not. 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 encyclopedia topic, this list is not that discussion.

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 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 List of magical weapons or List of mythological objects#Swords. Wtshymanski (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loggerjack (talk • contribs)

• Weak delete, but... 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 was terrible until a recent cleanup flushed out the worst parts. It's still an overly broad and unmaintainable list, BUT I think a Swords in myth and culture (non-list) article would be excellent, and this could be a starting point toward that if anyone feels up to the task. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see what the edit history is; the video game swords come and go. We have Swords in mythology but it's just a redirect to a list and no-one has yet expressed enough interest to start a real article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are List of mythological swords (should it be merged with List of fictional swords?) and Magic sword, 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. Loggerjack (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a counterpart to category:Fictional swords per WP:CLN. Closer please to disregard any arguments based on the article's current or historical content, and attend only to arguments based on its potential.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 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. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 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. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 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. Mathewignash (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator 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 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 Wikipedia as apparent from the discussion to this point. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  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 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 WP:OR? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - 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 List of fictional toxins, List of fictional medicines and drugs or List of fictional cats...--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Jclemens. Edward321 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2011 (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.