Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sword of Kas


 * 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 merge to Kas the Bloody-Handed, which itself may not be notable, but that is not determined by this debate. Simply put, a lot of people here are saying this is notable without addressing the Wikipedia norms for notability, in this case WP:N and WP:FICT. Mango juice talk 19:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sword of Kas

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable fictional object with too few substantial third-party references to support a Wikipedia article. Listing at AfD after a contested prod. Mikeblas (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Nom. Originating article is already fairly large and a merge is not suitable for a minor item in the book series. scope_creep (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect into Vecna - notable artifact in Vecna's history, in fact there is already a section about the item on Vecna's page. BOZ (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into Kas the Bloody-Handed. Subject does have 3rd-party reference & is notable enough to have appeared outside the game.--Robbstrd (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't even a stub. It's definitely a short paragraph belonging in someone elses' article. Like Vecna, or Kas himself. Howa0082 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Very Weak Merge into Kas the Bloody-Handed (almost opposing). - Here's the difficulty as I see it. The sword of Kas would appear to be more well-known than the character Kas. It was included as a magical sword in the first edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide (and even as far back as Eldritch Wizardry), with a little information about Vecna and Kas (and the sword itself). Personally, I think that the information at "Kas" should be reverse merged to the sword's article. (Though better would be to merge both - and then redirect - to Vecna, expanding the fictional history a bit, and clarifying the importance of the artifact, since neither seems important without reference to Vecna.) But those other articles aren't currently under discussion, hence my initial comments. - jc37 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We're trying to solve a problem here. Suggesting solutions that don't deal with a lack of secondary sources isn't helpful. Vecna doesn't have secondary sources either. Jay32183 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken--please review the reference sections on both articles--the source by Iron Hammer Graphics is independent of TSR/WotC.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not independent of Sword of Kas. Jay32183 (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Duh. Of course it isn't independent of the subject--how else can a subject be sourced without mentioning its name? However, the source it is independent of the IP holder, which makes it a legitimate source.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the name isn't what makes it dependent on the subject. Read WP:N, "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic". That's how we decide what does or doesn't get articles. Jay32183 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the work in question doesn't even have the name of the sword in its title, nor is the work "about" the subject--that qualifies as independent.--Robbstrd (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When dealing with fictional things, the sources are only independent if they contain detail other than plot. When dealing with things from games, the sources are only independent if they contain information beyond gameplay. I see no content of that type in the article so either that sources does not contain that information, or that isn't actually a source for this article. Jay32183 (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article seems to have a lot of references but needs specific sourcing of the claims. A merge may well be appropriate given the size of the Kas the Bloody Handed article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are required for stand alone articles. Jay32183 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable within the litature of xD&D. It is sourced. Support a merge with Kas as per jc37. Web Warlock (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fictional concepts need to be notable in the real world, WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Jay32183 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: It is notable because it was one of the first of a half of dozen or so "Magical Artifacts" introduced to the the D&D game through the original D&D supplement Eldritch Wizardry. This concept lead to the expansion of artifacts in the 1st Ed. AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, gave us the Mayfair RoleAid's books "Fantastic Treasures" and to the modern day with 3.5 Edition D&D books. Web Warlock (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not what notability means, read WP:N. Jay32183 (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as this fictional sword is a little more than a prop for the stock character, "Kas the Bloody-Handed". Compared with Hrunting or Excalibur on which the idea of a sword that empowers or distinguishes its wielder is based, it has no reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability outside of the Greyhawk canon. There is no myth surrounding this prop, and therefore no reason to keep. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "A stock character is a one that relies heavily on cultural types or stereotypes for their personality, manner of speech, and other characteristics." On what do you base your opinion that "Kas the Bloody-Handed" is a stock character? Edward321 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are TONS of vampire warlords serving lich-gods who use their special swords to cut off their masters' hands which then become powerful artifacts of their own - I mean, they're in damn near every story. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The role in the plot isn't actually relevant, WP:PLOT. There needs to be sources for real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - more information added to article entry to establish notability. More will be added later. Web Warlock (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per efforts to improve article that contains references and concerns an aspect of a notable game series. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Le Grand Roi, others. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons stated above. You deletionists ought to take up a more useful hobby. Iquander (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be more useful to make arguments based on policy and guideline rather than labeling people as deletionists or inclusionists. Having interest in a particular subject is not a reason to keep an article. No evidence that a topic has suitable sourcing to develop a proper encyclopedia article is a reason to delete an article. Jay32183 (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion, but you may perhaps want to actually read those pages that you're brandishing about. You may find the whole of WP:AADD an interesting read (or perhaps not, depending on your actual intent). - jc37 08:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Kas the Bloody-Handed; better yet, merge both into Vecna, which is long, notable, and has the needed references. Freederick (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into either the Kas or Vecna article. The content is notable, but the article itself is too short to, in my opinion, remain on its own outside of those potential parent articles.Shemeska (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Gavin says it best: it's a prop. --Jack Merridew 08:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - going through a stack of old White Dwarf and The Dungeoneer magazines now. Web Warlock (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2007 (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.