Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons


 * 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 as per arguments pointing to long-standing consensus about standards of notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Soul series mystical weapons

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

No assertion of notability for these weapons that justifies their own article, and thus violates WP:NN. The information seems to be pulled entirely from the game itself, thus violating WP:OR. No reliable third party resources to verify these games, thus violating WP:V. If you remove the headings of the article, you realize that the article is entirely comprised of in-game plot information, and violates the WP:PLOT policy on excluding plot information except to provide a concise summary -- which this article does not. Also violates the WP:GAMECRUFT #3 guideline on lists of weapons being unsuitable for wikipedia articles. These are 5 reasons, 3 of them fundamental to wikipedia policy, that justify the strong deletion of this article. Randomran (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm tempted to think that these weapons might have notability outside the game, but with them being eponymous it's difficult to track down reliable coverage about them and not just the game. Article as presented fails WP:Writing about fiction guidelines and WP:Verifiability policy. Marasmusine (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to demonstrate any notability. Fails WP:WAF as it stands also for being completely in-universe. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 09:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as titular weapons of a major franchise that can easily be verified in game publications. Astonishingly notable weapons per Soul Edge and Soul Calibur.  Article meets notable guidelines and is consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on video games or fictional items.  Material in article can be verified through everything from reviews of the game to published books about the games in addition to the games themselves and so cannot legitimately be called original research.  MANY reliable third party sources can be used to verify these games, thus passing WP:V, but just need to be added per SOFIXIT.  WP:ITSCRUFT is never a serious reason for deletion.  There are fundamental policy reasons that justify the strong keep for this article.  Note regarding the claim that it doesn't meet the game guideline, see who added that section.  Sincerley, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't be misleading. The policy was there long before I got there. "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game." That has been the consensus for a very long time. And the video game articles have reflected that consensus for a long time too. Randomran (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy you are quoting is actually in regards to things such as a "list of available weapons in GTA San Andreas", not articles about individual weapons. McJeff (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear Le Grand refuses to agree with game guide policies, so he chooses to think the policies don't exist. Which is disruptive, and not helpful to debates on video game weapon lists. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Sephiroth BCR, and I note that the article also fails WP:PLOT. Also agree with Marasmusine: notability is difficult to establish due to the names of the weapons. Jakew (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though these are titular weapons form a major game series that can be backed up by many reliable sources? Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that there is significant coverage of the games themselves. Since this article is about the weapons, the question is whether there is significant coverage of the weapons in independent reliable sources. Jakew (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just linked to some below. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Licensed toys & replicas are not independent, LGRdC. Jakew (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. They are not part of the game and because not all game weapons have toys and weapons made, they show that they are more notable than your typical game weapon at that game related guidelines do not apply here.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:N. Jakew (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which the article's subject passes. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As the page I linked to quite clearly indicates, it passes if there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 'Independent' is defined such that it "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject", and would thus exclude licensed merchandise. Jakew (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles passes such standards by also being able to be verified in independent reviews. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are the ONLY way it could pass such a notability standard. I haven't seen these reviews. Are they reliable? (And don't just make up your own definition. Read the policy on reliable sources and the policy against self-published sources.) Randomran (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable elements of a fictional universe which have not received substantial coverage from sources independent of the subject, and the article is entirely plot summary with no real-world analysis or significance. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though they are incredibly notable elements of a recognizable fictional universe that have received substantial coverage from reliable sources and are significant to people in the real world, i.e. in the form of not just being the titular subject of video games, but also appearing as toys and life-size replicas? Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you please provide links for the "substantial coverage from reliable sources" you mentioned? Or are you proposing those commercial websites (which as far as I can tell, fail most of what is required for a WP:N source.) Marasmusine (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any search of either weapon reveals their notability. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. User:Krator (t c) 15:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet, because they do not only appear in the games, but also as life size replicas and toys, game guide does not apply. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It's still a game guide. Clean the article up (and rename it to a toy list or something), then it wont be a problem. Until that happens, it's a game guide. Don't twist around policies, just because you want the article kept. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I was going to keep out of this one as per a RfC agreement, but in the case of this particularly AfD, we have one editor, Le Grande Rois, who has well established that the article is adequately sourced and notable in a real world context, and a bunch of editors who just don't seem to like him, or who at best fail to give his comments adequate weight because he's a ferociously strong inclusionist.  I see borderline personal attacks on him (accusing him of "twisting policies), that's not acceptable.  Yes, the article is a mess at this current point; way too much WP:PLOT.  Then again, I'd like to remind everyone that while excessive plot is discouraged, plot analysis is an essential part of many fictional articles.  Also, the quality of the article should not be used as a point for deletion unless the article is given a chance to improve and does not do so. McJeff (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where has it been "well established" that the material is notable? All that has been provided in this AFD are a few links to Amazon searches with the names of the swords simply plugged in and a few minor (bordering on sketchy even) online stores which sell toys. Lists of products are not sources and do not establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Titular weapons of one of the most significant fighting games that is even going to be made into a movie, that can be covered in video game magazines and published game guides, that have been made into toys and replicas available at multiple venues is unquestionably notable by an reasonable standard. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All that has been provided in this AFD are a few links to Amazon searches with the names of the swords simply plugged in and a few minor (bordering on sketchy even) online stores which sell toys. Lists of products are not sources and do not establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at reviews of these items? Lists of products are sources as they are evidence and establish notability.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reader reviews of products are not reliable sources and do not establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Try published magazines. In any event, we do not outright delete legitimate search terms.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any search will reveal that this topic is not notable since it has not been covered in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By contrast at this point, actual searches have revealed that this topic is very notable as it has been covered in reliable sources and therefore the only basis for deleting now is "I don't like it." Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The searches provided do not establish notability. Reliable sources are necessary. They have not been provided. Any search of reliable sources will clearly show that this topic is not notable. Therefore, the only basis for inclusion is WP:ILIKEIT. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The searches provided establish notability through reliable sources that have been provided. Already conducted searches of reliable sources has clearly shown that this topoic is notable.  Therefore, the only basis for exclusion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources have been provided to establish notability. The searches above yielded only product listings. Therefore this article should not be included on Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have been provided to establish notability. The searches above yielded product listings, published game guides, and independent reviews. Therefore this article should be included on Wikipedia. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I make a suggestion, LGRdC? Since you are apparently certain that you've found reliable sources through your searches, why don't you incorporate say half a dozen of them into the article? That way others can evaluate them, and see whether we agree that they are sufficient to establish notability. Jakew (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to do, but why not help me? Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply provide the links to the reliable sources you have found here, and I will personally add them to the article. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I began a reference section, but see also, , , , etc. Pretty much any review of the games mention the weapons in some capacity. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The first is a user created game mod, which is not reliable and does not establish notability. The second is a sales listing, which the concept of reliability does not apply to since it is not a source for any sort of content and it does not establish notability. The third is a homemade youtube video, which is not reliable and, even if it was, does not contain any content which could be added and naturally does not establish notability. The fourth is a gallery of pictures with a short review on a blog, which is not reliable and does not establish notability. Most of what you provided breaks WP:SPS. Perhaps you could have a look at WP:RSEX for some good examples of reliable sources and why certain types of sources are considered unreliable. It appears to me that you are simply providing links which contain the strings of the sword names without doing even a cursory check as to their suitability for Wikipedia. Do you have any sources that clearly meet the reliability criteria? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research/gamecruft. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, they're notable fictional swords. The nominator doesn't appear to understand the policy on no original research or verifiability. Summarizing a source (a game in this instance) is not original research. And before someone says WP:V requires information to be third-party verifiable, no, it just has to be verifiable by appearing in reliable sources. And PLOT is disputed. So there is no policy basis for deleting this article. And there are tons of third-party sources that have written about the games these swords appear in. WP:GAMECRUFT links to a WikiProject guideline which was invented by members of a WikiProject, not the Wikipedia community at large. The article isn't a game guide because it does not tell readers how to beat the fighting games in the Soul series. The article could at least be merged into Soul (series) per the editing policy. And the term "gamecruft" is about as valid a reason for deletion as "thoughtcrime." --Pixelface (talk) 10:25, 30 May 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.