Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sith 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 delete. Of those supporting keep, only Le Grand Roi directly addresses whether the subject is notable, and EEMeltonIV has a convincing response.--Kubigula (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sith Sword

Sith Sword (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article makes no assertion of real-world notability, offers no substantiating reliable sources, and includes some nuggets of gold OR(e). EEMeltonIV 12:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete.Per nom.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 12:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete forthwith. SolidPlaid 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep AfD shouldn't be used as a method of article improvement, put up the tags asking for references, written in an in universe style and possible OR etc. If after that and there are no takers than than that is the time for AfD. If the consensus is against this article, than useful information should be merged to List of Star Wars melee weapons and Sith Sword be redirected to that page.KTo288 21:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of melee weapons. A perfectly adequate home for it. I'd note though that it isn't actually OR - that's all straight from the source books, KOTR games and so on. --Gwern (contribs) 21:51 15 September 2007 (GMT)
• Delete or weak redirect. This is so painfully minor and trivial, I'm not sure there's anything worth keeping. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per notability of just about anything related to the unprecedently popular Star Wars or merge something like this in article on weapons as suggested above and redirect the article without deleting. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 13:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This article talks about the extended Star Wars universe, which is basically all the non-movie/non-mainstreme stuff, so it doesn't actually fall under the same category as other elements of Star Wars that have achieved great popularity. -- Ned Scott 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Even the stuff that isn't in the films can potentially appear in countless video games, graphic novels, etc., which can have millions of readers, players, etc. that it's hard to accurately estimate just how widespread the influence is. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment for the decades between the end of the first trilogy and the start of the second, it was the books, games and comics etc that sustained the Star Wars universe. KTo288 20:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Notability is not inherited. The films and even the EU as a whole may be notable, but that doesn't mean that every element within them is, too. --EEMeltonIV 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article could easily be improved by adding sources, for notability and verifiability. No reason to delete something so easily fixed. Viperix 06:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and chop in half with a lightsaber Being theoretically noteable isn't good enough. Jtrainor 19:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable reference in a non-notable book series. Mbisanz 06:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:55, 24 September 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.