Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masamune (video game weapon) (2nd 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 delete. There were a number of suggestions to merge to Masamune, however, there is already mention in that article of the naming of the video game swords and it wouldn't be appropriate to expand that section significantly with the material from the deleted article. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masamune (video game weapon)

Masamune (video game weapon) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

All this is, is a list of random unassociated weapons in computer games which have been named Masamune. I have no idea why the previous AFD resulted in Keep, that several video games looked to Masamune as a inspiration for weapons names does not an article make. It was previously split from Masamune for being too long, but this was incorrect, it should have been cut down, which it now has. - hahnchen 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — I came here because I was interested in the article. I guess that shows that the article is relevant to some users? — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.231.110.205 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
• Comment — why not just merge a few major/notable details and delete/redirect (depending on how much info kept)? Either way, this article has no right to be kept. — Deckiller 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • They're already there - Masamune#Masamune_in_popular_culture - hahnchen 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing can and should be done with this information. — Deckiller 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge details as relevant to their video games. The weapons are a portion of the game and are notable directly within each game, but that's it. Since there are more than one so-named weapon, no redirect. --Dennisthe2 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the swordsmith Masamune in an appropriate section, e.g., Masamune in popular culture or video games. ◄Zahakiel► 01:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Zahakiel ffm ^yes? 02:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge looks like the most constructive move to make. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - indiscriminate fancruft. MER-C 02:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is already a section in the Masamune article. Do you think the Masamune article should be expanded to include the in-universe commentary on disparate video game weapons as this article has? At most the video game swords should be a footnote list, which they are right now. - hahnchen 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. MER-C 02:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem important enough to have an entire article dedicated to it. Ganfon 03:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge, also I don't like how was giving a subheading other than what it's actual name is. It throws in the editors bias/pov. As such I'm changing it to simply what the article is called. Mathmo ^Talk 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is AFD, it's all about POV. If you can somehow enlighten me to how the 2 titles used are fundamentally different, then I'll change it. But I am trying to make a point. - hahnchen 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • And that point is to attract the large portion of people who will vote delete purely based on the fact delete is used in the article title. Mathmo ^Talk 05:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Masamune. —Lowellian (reply) 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge --Euzebia Zuk 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per suggestion. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems that most of the suggestions so far are to merge. If that is the case, then I recommend redirecting, not deleting, due to the GDFL policies. I'd ask for the closing admin to note that. — Deckiller 12:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems like a good article but if kept would need some very minor cleanup.Tellyaddict 17:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge doesn't need its own article.-- danntm ^T _C 18:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely non-notable gamecruft; having a weapon named "Masamune" in a game is no more notable than having a character named "John" in a game. - Chardish 18:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Unless the character is notably named after a famous John such as John Locke (Lost). Pomte 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is a big difference between "John" and "Masamune" due to uniqueness, a more comparable comparision would be if called not "John" but "The Great John Barrington the Third" (if such a person existed and was featured in many video games). Mathmo ^Talk 09:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge or keep, this is a verifiable part of the swordsmith's legacy. It should not be removed entirely from Wikipedia. —siroχo 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, fictional, indiscriminate, and original research (unless some third party documentation exists)-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge back to Masamune under the "in popular culture" section as a notable tribute to him. So instead of Final Fantasy weapons, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, and any other such articles each talking about the Masamune weapon's origin, they would simply have a wikilink. Pomte 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite as a disambiguation page. Video game weapons belong in the article on the video game. A disambiguation page is the best Wikipedia tool to get readers to the right information. If any material is in the present article but not in the article on the video game, that information can be transferred to the article on the game. Do not merge into Masamune. Keep the historical article sharply focused on the historical person. Fg2 01:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: the video game information is pretty much explained either in Final Fantasy weapons (which will be cut down and overhauled anyway, but that's beside the point) and the plot summary on the Chrono Trigger featured article. — Deckiller 09:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into either Masamune or the video game articles, but Keep the information around. — CJewell (talk to me) 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rename as Masamune_(Square_Enix). The Masamune in the Chrono Trigger series is just as a weapon, but in many of the Final Fantasy games, it is a plot device. Deleting the article in its entirety would then lose the description of this plot device, unless the information is merged into the appropriate places... - Patch

• Merge and redirect - merge back to Masamune leaving a redirect in place. Mdcollins1984 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Merge and delete page - nobody will search for Masamune (video game weapon) will they? Therefore no reason for leaving a redirect in place.Mdcollins1984 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't "merge and delete" pages, because it violates the GFDL. You always must merge and redirect pages to preserve edit history and emphasize merge. — Deckiller 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Masamune per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR and Much Ado About Dicdef. Butseriouslyfolks 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, do not merge - this article exemplifies a bizarre notion native to Wikipedia editors that cultural references themselves are substantive fictions. Minute elements from videogames are given this grandiose and speculative treatment as if their continual appearance signified anything more than tired cliche. Such a stance is just flawed, deeply flawed and baseless. Sorry. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, merge as little as possible. These things should only be noted in the Masamune article to the extent that they help the reader understand Masamune, rather than the various video games. Keep the article on topic! Dekimasuが... 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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.