Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarent


 * 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   redirect to Excalibur. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarent

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Factual errors and WP:SYNTH. The article wrongly identifies the sword Clarent with the sword in the stone. The name Clarent only appears in one Arthurian work, Alliterative Morte Arthure, and it's not identified as the sword in the stone in there. The article inflates the importance and provenance of the name Clarent, and it is made redundant because of better coverage in Excalibur, which is sometimes identified with the sword in the stone.

Namespace should be redirected to Excalibur, as Sword in the Stone redirects to the novel The Sword in the Stone, or possibly Alliterative Morte Arthure. -- Asado (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed factual errors and cruft. But the namespace should still be redirected to prevent errors from being inserted again. Asado (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination is proposing redirection rather than deletion. And it can't decide where to redirect which argues for keeping the matter where it is, where it can be fully explained and linked to other related topics.  Note that this "sword of peace" is discussed in detail in The Alliterative Morte Arthure and Arthur's Sword of Peace. Warden (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Excalibur; the one-sentence reference there to this weapon's mention in a single text is sufficient coverage. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Colonel Warden. AfD is not AfR. If the noms intention is not to delete entirely from Wikipedia, it shouldn't be on AfD. Use the article talk page to discuss content issues, or just make the redirect and see if anyone objects, then start an RfC or something if needed. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * redirect. Either redirect would do, but I think the one to Excalibur#Arthur's other weapons would be more useful. We can decide on that right here--there is no need to go back and do it as an edit. All named weapons in famous works of this sort are worth having some information, but that does not mean they are worth a full article.  DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Fails WP:GNG. Caledfwlch is a redirect and the one reference I could find on that notes, Caledfwlch and Caliburn are alternative names for Excalibur, the legendary sword associated with King Arthur. This 1895 book says that Clarent was Arthur's second best sword. The Wikipedia Clarent article could be copyvio of worldspyinfo.us (not sure whether Wikipedia or worldspyinfo.us was published first). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Excalibur per Roscelese. The only classic work that really features the sword in any large capacity ithe Alliterative Morte Arthur, and even then it is not a major part of the narrative.  The section in the Excalibur article already has a brief sentence talking about the sword, and the bit of information there pretty much covers everything notable about the sword.  A good deal of this article outside of that information is largely original research, and would be inappropriate for any merging.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2012 (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.