Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axe of the Dwarvish Lords (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   merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. Courcelles 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Axe of the Dwarvish Lords
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fictional weapon. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Claritas §  15:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. It's possible the game module has independent coverage in the form of critical reviews, but this can be recreated as an article for that with a note about the magic item later on if sources are found. —Torchiest talkedits 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per Torchiest. As an artifact this has no notability; as a module it might (although I would have expected there to be a module article already if there was).Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep pending a search for sources, but merge to list article otherwise. BOZ (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator has "retired" after past socking in fictional elements-related discussions had been brought up. Existing sources in the article are varied and show broad coverage of this fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they do not. It's WP:BOMBARDMENT of primary sources:
 * 1. Game sourcebook published by TSR, Inc - gaming company that published D&D before being bought out by Wizards of the Coast.
 * 2. Ditto.
 * 3. Ditto.
 * 4. Ditto.
 * 5. Ditto.
 * 6. Game sourcebook published by the spooky wizards who live on the coast.
 * 7. Ditto
 * 8. Blogpost reviewing source 5. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually #8 is RPGNet and it has been established and accepted as an independent source for game articles throughout many AFDs and when promoting articles to GA or FA status. If it is a good enough source to help an article to FA or GA then it is certainly good enough for an AFD discussion. Web Warlock (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good - the problem is that it's the only independent source. I'd be more comfortable with this article merged into a notable article, knowing that it will be kept, than if it can be re-nominated for AfD and deleted the next time. Diego (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Source #8 is not about the article's topic. The article is about the artifact, and source #8 is about the RPG module. 0 relevant independent source there.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 05:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect No significant independent sources. LK (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge the Publication history section to Eldritch Wizardry (which could use the expanded text) and mark this as a redirect-with-possibilities. There is evidence that the artifact was well received and known, and it's likely that some offline source had noted it at the time; so it's not unlikely that an article could be written in the future. Meanwhile, while there are not enough independent online sources to prove notability, the primary sources are enough to preserve the not-in-universe parts in a related article. Diego (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. If the article is blanked and redirected without merging any content, please add a notice of this at the target talk page, so that readers can find out this article's history. Diego (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. Only one of the "sources...[that] show broad coverage" is not a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, and it's a non-reliable source. There is precisely zero meeting of the WP:GNG here, and no notability at all outside of the game itself. Worth mentioning as part of the list, but meets in no way the criterion for an independent article. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. I have been searching for a while on this one and have not found significant coverage. Lots of minor coverage and mentions, but nothing that could support an article. Web Warlock (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. Fails WP:GNG per the total absence of secondary sources about the topic.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2013 (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.