Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormbringer


 * 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The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn). I am closing this nomination which I started. My objections have been addressed, and no other delete/merge vote remains. Thank you to all who participated. (non-admin closure) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Stormbringer

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fictional sword. I've prodded this with "No evidence this fictional object passes GNG/NFICTION." a while back, and User:Toughpigs deprodded it with WP:NEXIST: "Michael Moorcock: Fiction, Fantasy and the World's Pain", "The 1960s: A Decade of Modern British Fiction". Unfortunately, a year+ later, the article still has next to zero when it comes to proving reception/significance of this object. Aside from one sentence in the lead, it's pure plot summary plus a mostly unreferenced and ORish "In popular culture" section. Sadly, I can't access the first book outside snippet view, even with Z-library. The snippets from Michael Moorcock: Fiction, Fantasy and the World's Pain. don't suggest anything that goes beyond a plot summary (and there are many false hits, as in, the discussion of Stormbringer (novel), for example). The 1960s: A Decade of Modern British Fiction does have two sentences of analysis, but that's it, two sentences: ''By the time he came to the Elric stories with their central image of the semi-autonomous sword 'Stormbringer' Moorcock was able to invest this object, intrinsic to the plot and indigenous to the world represented in the text, with the necessary symbolic currency. It was meant to represent his frequently repeated theme 'how mankind's wish-fantasies can bring about the destruction of... part of mankind'"''. I am afraid that's just not enough to warrant keeping a stand-alone page for this niche fictional object. I suggest redirecting this to the titular novel, and the referenced single sentence of analysis that exists in the current article can be merged as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Nuisance AfD Artw (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Elric of Melniboné - I am seeing no real reason for this to be split into a separate article from the main article on the character and series. The sources that discuss the sword are all doing so in a manner that discuss it as an element/aspect of the character of Elric and the overall themes of the books, rather than as a distinct entity with independent notability. When you remove the largely WP:ORish fluff that makes up the second half of the article, what is left should really be covered on the main article on the series and character as part of the overall discussion of the themes and influences.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have stricken my above recommendation for Merging per the discussion and sources below. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you substitute the Eternal Champion for Elric, your statements would be more correct... But still insufficiently so. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason I specifically suggested the article on the Elric series as the target, rather than the overall Eternal Champion, is that this article is very specifically on the Stormbringer incarnation of the "Black Sword". I'm not an expert on the series, but its my understanding that the specific "Stormbringer" incarnation of the Black Sword is something that is largely tied to Elric, and the other versions of the Eternal Champion all have their own Black Sword equivalent, but are still their own distinct incarnation of the weapon. If you are suggesting that this article could be renamed and revamped to cover the concept of the Black Sword as a whole, I can see the potential.  But, if it is going to remain focused specifically on Elric's Stormbringer, it would be better covered on that main article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems like more of an argument for article expansion than a merge argument, TBH. Artw (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Its more that I think that the sourced information that is currently in this article that is specifically on the Stormbringer as wielded by Elric should be included on the main Elric of Melniboné page rather than split out as its own article, hence the Merge argument. But that doesn't preclude there also being an article on the Black Sword as an overall concept. Rorshacma (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a reasonable take on things... but which of us have the time to do that? Thus, it becomes a question of cleanup, merge, delete, or kick the can down the road, rather than any real meaningful improvement to move the encyclopedia forward. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I wonder if the Elric of Melniboné page needs a rewrite from 'a fictional character' to the 'series', like we did recently with Heechee (a fictional race) that following a recent AfD got rewritten into a much more encyclopedic and notable concept of the Heechee Saga. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We have no person or team keeping up Michael Moorcock's corpus. It's a mostly unusable shambles, and I neither have the time nor the dead tree sources to revise it, but it should be done, because the whole of the category deserves better than what it has here. The fact that you would even think about nominating Stormbringer for deletion speaks to how substandard our coverage is. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rorshacma In light of Stormbringer, do you still think merge is best? I am considering withdrawing this nom if you concur. Interested editors may want to comment at Talk:Elric_of_Melniboné. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - Sure, I have stricken my above recommendation if you would like to withdraw the nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Nominator admits this nomination is based on the current state of the article, and hence fixable by regular editing. Stormbringer has been imitated in so many other media, this article is an "in popular culture" magnet. Having said that, a full scholar search is going to find plenty, but I don't have time to undertake one at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a few that y'all can chew through. Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And are they talking about the Sword, outside of a plot summary, or the book with the same name? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The book of the same name is one of eight-ish books in which Elric and Stormbringer have an 'it's complicated' relationship. I'm perfectly capable of bringing you things that aren't trivial or only about the book or the specific sword; have a bit more AGF. The title of the first paper I linked is "A Brief History of EPVIDS: Subjectivity and Evil Possessed Vampire Demon Swords" which should be a big clue that it's not talking about just any specific sword or plot, but about an entire class of fictional object of which Stormbringer is the most recognizable and popularly successful modern incarnation. Oh, here's one that talks about Stormbringer without mentioning it by name, too: Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This all seems like a pretty convincing argument for a merge like Rorshacma suggested, although the target article needs to be rewritten into one about the series, with a reasonable plot summary which can discuss the relation between Elric and his sword. And in the reception we can have the two-three sentences of analysis we dug up, on the sword, since we haven't yet looked for coverage of Elric. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, no, the entire of EPVIDS may include Stormbringer as an archetype, but expands far beyond that. A merger to Elric does not make sense even within the Moorcock corpus, because other characters used/wielded it in various forms, but trying to create a new article on the concept of EPVIDS including Stormbringer might. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt EPVIDS are notable, although if the term is used by more than one author, a section in magic sword would be good. My quick check suggests that the term has been used by just two authors (as far as scholarly sources go) so it is very much not notable IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources review:
 * The first source (accessed through WP:LIBRARY) arguably is a WP:SIGCOV treatment of this. It does call the Stombringer the most influential of modern "Evil Possessed Vampire Demon Swords". However, most other mentions are in the plot context, or focus on Sword's relationship to Eric (which supports the idea of a merge). The most analytical, non-plot quote I found that is about the sword and not its wielder (Eric) is this: "Still, a weapon like Stormbringer reinforces liberal selfhood in a particularly concrete way. It carries a continuous external threat to personal autonomy, and it subverts a fully rational self-determination. Modern fantasy heroes, especially in epic fantasy, often rail against "destiny" or a prophecy, but such destinies and prophecies lack Stormbringer's sentient specificity."
 * The second source (also accessed through WP:LIBRARY) is not relevant, it only states that "Small narratives of such mo- ments occur throughout Michael Moorcock's dark Elric series; the protagonist's black sword, Stormbringer, drinks its victims' souls as they watch. It is telltale that the sword finally turns out to be a disguised version of Satan." and I am not sure if the second sentence relates to Stomrbinger or some other work discussed earlier in the text.
 * The final words of the series are spoken by Stormbringer, after it had turned on Elric, drank his soul, and transformed into a humanoid shape in which to corrupt the newly re-created world, "Farewell, friend. I was a thousand times more evil than thou." (which is from Memory, because Wikiquote, inexplicably, does not reproduce it) Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens Damn, we need spoiler tags after all :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was able to access source three (simple CEEOL login worked). It mentions the topic once, I'd say in passing: "Tyrfingr’s influence  on  the  folkloric trope  of  cursed  magic  swords  possessing self-determination may be recognised in such medievalist fantasy re-imaginings as Stormbringer in Michael Moorcock’s Elric of Melniboné — the black  sword  sustaining  its  sickly  owner  at  the  cost  of  perpetually  feeding  it lives."
 * source four sadly is unavailable to me. If anyone figures out how to access, do let me know
 * source five is a blog, unreliable
 * Anyway, I remain increasingly convinced that the topic has no stand-alone notability, but a merge to Elric of Melniboné is a sound idea. PS. Someone should consider adding some of this to magic sword... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * About source four, I see the whole publication simply on the page of the link. It has one paragraph where it features Strombringer as a magic item with its own intent, closing with the evaluation "these unique magical items are like technologies unleashed on the world that are agents in their own right." If it should not display for you, please ping me again and I'll copy/paraphrase more. Daranios (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you could, please do. Trying to access full text directs me to a log in page and I don't have the right credentials. I assume your institution has the subscription to this database - lucky :) <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The paragraph says that Strombringer is a special type of magical item, also known from D&D, in that it has a will, goals (like devouring souls), personality and an alignment. Often "pulling Elric along", and is in struggle with him. And then the quoted comparison with technology. Daranios (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can add something to the article based on it, go ahead. Since I cannot see the content I have to trust you on this one. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't really plan on investing more time here, but well, I've added what I've seen in that source. Daranios (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One more on White Plume Mountain and Blackrazor, from the module's author:
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I think in total with the sources present in the article and those already found there exists enough coverage to establish the notability of the topic. AfD is not clean-up, and the current state of the article is not the important point for a deletion decision. Daranios (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Highly notable and easily enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am highly skeptical of the notability claims of fictional swords, but the new sourcing provided in this AfD strikes me as persuasive. In particular, "A Brief History of EPVIDS: Subjectivity and Evil Possessed Vampire Demon Swords" is centrally organized around assessing the meaning of this particular fictional sword as a fictional sword (i.e., its real-world importance, not its in-narrative importance), explicitly stating a long-lasting influence that is also detectable in some of the imitations/adaptations mentioned in the "in pop culture" section of the article. It really does seem that this is a paradigmatic fictional sword which influenced its genre. The article would be much improved if the "description" section was substantially reduced, and half of the "in popular culture" section was converted to an "imitations and influence" section (e.g., the Game of Thrones example is a trivial pop culture reference, but the D&D Blackrazor is much more than that). Those improvements can be handled through normal editing and are not cause for deletion. The article is overall solid enough that WP:TNT does not apply. Because the importance of the sword lies in its impact on fantasy as a genre, I oppose a merge to the character Elric, and would consider the book series a more appropriate merge target if the final consensus is for a merge. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Convincing argumentation to keep in the discussion above. /Julle (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. The article has been improved to the point I no longer feel the need to consider deletion/merger. No other delete/merge vote remain. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.