Deletion of List of fictional swords

Comment: bad faith, uncivil nomination purely based on . Wikipedians need to refrain from using discriminatory/pejorative terms like "nerd," especially when nominating an article for AFD. Try again but with a better reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: because |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Plus, unmaintable list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: it's useless, unmaintainable, and, most of all,   Special:Contributions/129.7.251.3|129.7.251.3
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: WP:NOTDIR This article should be a directory page linking to more specific lists (e.g. Fictional swords in Asian Folklore, Modern Western Fantasy, Video Games, and so on), as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT)

Comment: Another |indiscriminate list.  Narrow the subject down and you could have several notable lists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: per nom.  Please review .  Thanks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: for those who provided |no reason behind their ''delete'' arguments, please read , especially the part where it says ''this is not a majority vote
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOREASON||WP:AFD)

Comment: as an extreme case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: WP:IINFO and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: Nomination boils down to .  It's not unmaintainable-- obviously there are people who care very much about the subject.  Nor is it indiscriminate.  Nor is it unsalvageable.  God help us if all of these fictional swords should each get their own separate article to necessitate a category.  And certainly it is not "retarded", "made by nerds", "ridiculous", "pointless".  Most importantly, it is not destructive of Wikipedia's credibility; in fact, it illustrates the strength of Wikipedia in having multiple contributors work on subjects that not everybody is interested in.  Whether one likes it or not, authors of fantasy fiction go to great lengths in describing weaponry as part of the detail that goes in to such work.  I don't particularly care for fantasy epics-- I'd rather have sci-fi or a political thriller any day.  But I'm not going to describe someone who doesn't like what I like as nerdy or retarded.  The only knock against this that I can see might be "original research", although there are some instances where we don't need to know which page of the paperback book had the description of the sword
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Problems with  sink this for me. The redlinks don't help, either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)