Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Swords of Power

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 redirect to Books of Swords. Content is fully retained in the page history for anyone who wishes to perform a proper merge. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Swords of Power

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable topic about artifacts in a fantasy series. There are no independent, reliable sources and the article is written like an opinion essay. Ciridae (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My goodness, it just goes on and on and on. Encyclopedia should not be a repository of fan material, reliable sources do not discuss the details of this fictional world. ValarianB (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Books of Swords. This is just a whole lot of plot-only WP:CRUFT with no non-primary sources supporting any of the information. Searches also bring up no reliable sources discussing the swords either, as only fan sites and fan wikis mention them. Merging is unnecessary, as the swords are already mentioned in the book series main article, and this amount of unsourced cruft would not improve that article in any way if merged into it. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delele - Fails reliable sources, notability. Fan page. WP:CRUFT. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Books of Swords. Does not have any indication of notability to warrant its own article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete/Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge Some possible RS'es: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], but I'm finding the commentary doesn't really focus on the swords themselves in any way that would require (or benefit from) an article separate from the series'. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't really see the benefit of a Merge in this case, as none of those sources really say anything about the swords themselves that isn't already included in the main Books of Swords article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect or merge is fine my me, for the record. Keeping information in some manner is always preferable. ValarianB (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but in summarized form. I agree that there's no need for this level of detail on Wikipedia, but the current version of the Books of Swords article doesn't list the individual swords either. Replacing the current redirect to this page with a list of each sword and a 1-2 sentence description of its powers, or a table with powers and drawbacks should be sufficient. --Bobson (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.