Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Reaver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Soul Reaver

Soul Reaver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot of the games in which the weapon is used. As such, it is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep as consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fiction. More than sufficient reader interest. Plenty of editors actively working on it. Undeniable verifibility through reliable sources. Any time an article is repeated or duplicated, we merged and redirect without deletion. No reason therefore for outright deletion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and DeleteZef (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the nominator. DurinsBane87 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • AfD is not a vote, however, per WP:PERNOMINATOR. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It is one thing to engage in discussion with the people who disagree with you, but it is quite another to harass them with this kind of stuff; the user does not act like he thinks it is only a vote, and there is also nothing "illegal" about merging some of this text and deleting the rest, that's what AFD is all about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, there is something illegal about it, because according to the GFDL, if we merge anything from one article than we must keep the edit history public and therefore would have to redirect without deletion. "Per nom" has long been considered an argument to avoid and it adds nothing really to a discussion, thus pointing that out to editors is harmless as it encourages them to approach this as a discussion rather than just a list of bold faced stances with no arguments. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Fine, I support my vote by saying there is no proven notability, and that its just plot rehashing. Which is exactly what the nominator said, but I apparently must rewrite it. There it is. DurinsBane87 (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's a little bit of redundant, and a whole lot of speculation and excessive detail. Nothing here to save; it's all "I played the game and this is what I noticed." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant; no reliable sources; seems rather fancrufty. Thetrick (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That is completely false and you know it; no reliable sources have been demonstrated, you know this to be true, so you are choosing to ignore wikipedia policies and it must stop. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
These nominations of notable topics for deletion should stop if anything. Relable sources have demonstrated notability. Saying that a titular weapon is not notable is simply not accurate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless someone can show otherwise, this weapon is not notable. That is, there are no reliable secondary sources about the weapons that are independent of the game series itself. Randomran (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm one of the editors working off and on with the Legacy of Kain pages, but the weapon itself has no real-world notability, and while the games and the characters are still going to be cleaned up and such notability established, there is no such hope for this article in particular. As mentioned, notable within the series though it is, all the articles on the games list the same information. The Clawed One (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)