Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleam the 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. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fleam the sword

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This element of fiction does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rol Cortishane which is itself questionable. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or even delete as it is extremely obscure. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I'd try to get  the information merged somewhere in the description of the game play or the character. To delete outright would require some reason why this would not be suitable. That it does not justify a separate article is clear enough. It shuld not be the onus of the defender of content to show why it could be merged, not deleted, but the other way round.  DGG (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to say merge into Rol Cortishane, but as that character's article should be merged or deleted as well, I don't want to unnecessarily put off the final decision. – sgeureka t•c 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plot summary for the fictional sword of a fictional character, obviously non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merge what exactly of a fictional sword? If there is any important information it should already be in the fictional owner of the sword. If not just add it. "Fleam the sword" reruns 0 GHits. It's an unlikely item as well. No reason to keep it as a redirect. Article right now is orphan as well. It's not even mentioned in the List of fictional swords! -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as obviously notable. No reason to delete.  --63.3.1.1 (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it obviously notable? Can you provide any source that supports that opinion? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  treelo  radda  01:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as obviously non-notable. Every reason to delete.  (Seriously, an object used by a character in a series that has yet to be released?) JuJube (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It takes two clicks to get to the marginally notable work of fiction that includes it. There is no sourced material.  No independent sources cover it.  It can and should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable element of a book series which is itself of borderline notability at best. I'd say to redirect to the series' article, but as far as I can tell we don't have one. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:24, 27 September 2008 (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.