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 Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver as a probable search term. As the primary complaints are that the material is too in-depth and primarily reduplication of material rather than a more egregious violation of content policies, there is no pressing reason to actually delete. Preserving the history will also allow for GFDL-compliant merging of any potentially useful information. Shereth 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Reaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot of the games in which the weapon is used. As such, it is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fiction. More than sufficient reader interest. Plenty of editors actively working on it. Undeniable verifibility through reliable sources. Any time an article is repeated or duplicated, we merged and redirect without deletion. No reason therefore for outright deletion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and DeleteZef (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is illegal per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, thus a "merge and delete" really means "merge and redirect wouthout deletion." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Illegal" is a strong word, especially when the link you provided explicitly states that it is an essay/opinion, and not even a guideline. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is an interpretation of the GFDL that does have consensus as seen on AN threads and in practice in AfD closures. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nominator. DurinsBane87 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not a vote, however, per WP:PERNOMINATOR. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is one thing to engage in discussion with the people who disagree with you, but it is quite another to harass them with this kind of stuff; the user does not act like he thinks it is only a vote, and there is also nothing "illegal" about merging some of this text and deleting the rest, that's what AFD is all about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there is something illegal about it, because according to the GFDL, if we merge anything from one article than we must keep the edit history public and therefore would have to redirect without deletion. "Per nom" has long been considered an argument to avoid and it adds nothing really to a discussion, thus pointing that out to editors is harmless as it encourages them to approach this as a discussion rather than just a list of bold faced stances with no arguments. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine, I support my vote by saying there is no proven notability, and that its just plot rehashing. Which is exactly what the nominator said, but I apparently must rewrite it. There it is. DurinsBane87 (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's something for the closing administrator to decide. Your heckling is simply rude and does not help your position at all. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Arguing to delete valid articles because a handful of editors don't like it is simply rude and does not help our project at all. AfD is a discussion, not a vote of list of per nom "votes" or subjective "non-notable" votes. We are supposed to engage each other and hold each other accoutable in the discussion to get to an actual conclusion to see whether or not there are any valid reasons to delete and as this article is not a hoax, not a copy vio, not a thesis advancing essay, not a how to, etc. there's no encyclopedic reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Simply because you decide to defend the article does not grant you a high horse to stand on and claim that everyone that wants the article deleted is acting in bad faith. The nominator of this AfD and every other person !voting "delete" is acting in good faith and presenting a genuine set of reasoning for deletion that is backed by consensus, regardless of whatever your views are on the matter. Claiming that their actions are conducted in bad faith is rude and uncivil. And again, the closing administrator decides the value of individual !votes, not you. If someone wants to say "per nom", then so be it. The closing administrator determines the value of such a statement. Argue against the nominator's logic, which this !vote is referring to. And again, this is degenerating into tendentious editing on your part - drop it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Simply wanting to delete articles that a vocal minority wants deleted because in all honesty they just don't like certain articles is being on a high horse if anything. I have no doubt that some in this discussion are indeed acting in good faith, although I do disagree with the validity of many arguments presented. Misleadingly claiming that efforts to engage people in disucssion rather than to just make a list of delete votes is incivil and rude. If we really are going to say that AfD is a discussion and a vote, then we need to engage other editors. Efforts to derail actual discussion by ad hominen attacks on me is degenerating into tendentious editing on your part - please drop it and focus on the actual article under discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Accusing me of tendentious editing? Hardly, when there are multiple users on one side and you sitting alone on the other. Anyhow, your diatribe against the deletion policy notwithstanding, you still are the minority. In absence of sufficient opposition, current consensus stands. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I am hardly alone on this discussion. There is sufficient opposition against notability, regardless of what the minority think. Sure some may be for some kind of notability, but it is subjective when we start going from person to person. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a little bit of redundant, and a whole lot of speculation and excessive detail. Nothing here to save; it's all "I played the game and this is what I noticed." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant; no reliable sources; seems rather fancrufty. Thetrick (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant material is redirected without deletion, reliable sources exist, and WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely false and you know it; no reliable sources have been demonstrated, you know this to be true, so you are choosing to ignore wikipedia policies and it must stop. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These nominations of notable topics for deletion should stop if anything. Relable sources have demonstrated notability. Saying that a titular weapon is not notable is simply not accurate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless someone can show otherwise, this weapon is not notable. That is, there are no reliable secondary sources about the weapons that are independent of the game series itself. Randomran (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the titular weapon of a reconizable series, which means it is at least notable enough for a redirect. There is absolutely no reason here for an outright deletion, given Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'm one of the editors working off and on with the Legacy of Kain pages, but the weapon itself has no real-world notability, and while the games and the characters are still going to be cleaned up and such notability established, there is no such hope for this article in particular. As mentioned, notable within the series though it is, all the articles on the games list the same information. The Clawed One (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which shows that there are merge and redirect locations, but not really any reason for an outright deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to the series article Legacy of Kain. The series article needs a rewite to remove unsourced material, as well as a heavy dose of citationing, but would probably benefit from the inclusion of some carefully selected material. I'd reccomend a redirect as Soul Reaver is a likely search term for the game series. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no notability asserted via non-trivial coverage in reliable verifiable secondary sources, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is disputed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is not. Read the discussion. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The discussion shows that it is disputed and the fact that editors created and worked on this article in good faith also shows that it lacks consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or that the editors who created and worked on this in good faith made a good-faith mistake by putting a fanpage in an encyclopedia. We don't keep typos because they were made in good faith. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, exactly, we correct the typos, but don't remove the word. Thus, we should keep and improve this article rather than unconstructively delete it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're mangling the analogy here. The good-faith mistake was creating an article which cannot be comprehensive or well-sourced. An article which is bad, cannot become anything but bad, and is not a useful merge candidate for anything is a perfect deletion candidate. I'm sorry it means we're destroying someone's work, but sometimes editing means excising the unnecessary and unhelpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • If the article were bad or had no potential, okay, but an article that is a valid search term ("Soul Reaver" is part of a game's name) and that can be referenced through game guides and magazines (using a game guide or magazine as a source no more makes us a game guide or magazine than citing a scholarly journal makes us a journal rather than an encyclopedia) should be kept or merged in some manner or at least redirected in a fashion that keeps the contribution history public. I see valid rationales to merge and valid rationales to redirect, but I see no reason to outright delete a valid search term. And to be honest it is simply not right that a hald dozen editors here in five days should be able to undo what dozens of IPs and accounts have been working on since 2005. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Delete and redirect works fine. If you can source this with game guides and magazines and have something to say that isn't recapping the plot of the Legacy of Kain series, go ahead and do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • • If it's a valid redirect, then there's no reason to have to delete on top of it as keeping the contribution history public makes it easier for editors to possibly add sources to the article as they come up. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. Has received third-party coverage, see Google books refs here and here. More sources may be available, but not all books can easily be previewed online. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  First one is a throwaway mention that doesn't constitute critical coverage - it merely describes what the sword is in the game. Next source doesn't even mention the sword save the hack you use to acquire it, which doesn't contribute any notability. The only other books I see in the last one are the strategy guides, which are not independent of the topic, and cannot be used to establish notability. Practically all the items in that search are likely pointing to the game rather than the sword in any case. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If you used those references to somehow improve this article, I would be impressed and possibly convinced to change my mind. However, I cannot see how they could be used to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. There are no sources to demonstrate notability of this weapon, or that this article is not OR. Fails WP:PLOT (which, I know is undergoing discussion right now) in a massive way. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we should redirect, there's no reason to delete as well, especially for a verfiable article that represents unoriginal research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know it's not original research? The external links all seem to be fansites, so don't satisfy reliable sources. Other than your word (or those of other editors), what is my assurance? There's no sources given, no assertion of notability, the references suggested above aren't useful for the reasons that Sephiroth BCR gives, so there is a significant absence of tangible evidence for notability and verifiability. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know it's not original research by looking at those sources, looking through game magazines, playing the games, etc. all of which satisfy reliable sources as useful references. The article is unquestionable notable and verifiable at least enough for a merge and redirect without deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:40, 13 June 2008 (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.