Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Edge (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 of the debate was merge, er, somewhere. Maybe to Soul Calibur mystical weapons? (You lot could express yourselves a bit more clearly on AFDs.) - ulayiti (talk)  11:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Soul Edge (sword)
It makes little sense to make two new seperate articles that basically split Soul Calibur mystical weapons word by word. Also note that the mystical weapons article was here long before these and these supposedly "new" seperate Soul Calibur articles just sprung up. Even the Images have been blatently reused again. Delete for redundancy, as any new info incorparated into the "new" seperate articles can be added back into the oringinal. MegamanZero|Talk 08:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Place the relevant information into the parent article and leave a redirect to discourage recreation.  Movementarian 10:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, as Movementarian suggests. -- Mikeblas 11:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wouldn't vote to keep, say, an article on Setsuka's iaito.  But the Soul Edge and Soul Calibur are very much central to the plot of this very popular and notable series of games.  They're what everybody is fighting over, and thus the driving force behind the story.  Compare Master Sword and Death Star, or just about anything on List of fictional swords or List of fictional weapons.  "Soul Edge" gets 111,000 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not enough to each warrent an article however. See Soul Calibur mystical weapons, which is the oringinal article; stealing information and making two seperate ones is needlesly redundant. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge per above. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 19:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep again per above. -- JJay 00:17, 7 January 2006 (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.