Deletion of Soul series mystical weapons

Comment: as titular weapons of a major franchise that can easily be verified in game publications.  Astonishingly notable weapons per http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-1080304-4174467?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Soul+Edge Soul Edge and http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Soul+Calibur Soul Calibur.  Article meets notable guidelines and is consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on video games or fictional items.  Material in article can be verified through everything from reviews of the game to published books about the games in addition to the games themselves and so cannot legitimately be called original research.  MANY reliable third party sources can be used to verify these games, thus passing WP:V, but just need to be added per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT.   is never a serious reason for deletion.  There are fundamental policy reasons that justify the strong keep for this article.  Note regarding the claim that it doesn't meet the game guideline, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines&diff=214200913&oldid=213825588 who added that section.  Sincerley
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSCRUFT)

Comment: they're notable fictional swords. The nominator doesn't appear to understand the policy on |no original research or |verifiability. Summarizing a source (a game in this instance) is not original research. And before someone says  requires information to be third-party verifiable, no, it just has to be verifiable by appearing in reliable sources. And PLOT is disputed. So there is no policy basis for deleting this article. And there are tons of third-party sources that have written about the games these swords appear in.  links to a WikiProject guideline which was invented by members of a WikiProject, not the Wikipedia community at large. The article isn't a game guide because it does not tell readers how to beat the fighting games in the Soul (series)|''Soul'' series. The article could at least be '''merged''' into Soul (series) per the |editing policy. And the term "gamecruft" is about as valid a reason for deletion as "thoughtcrime
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:V||WP:V||WP:GAMECRUFT||WP:EP)

Comment: per #GUIDE
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I'm tempted to think that these weapons might have notability outside the game, but with them being eponymous it's difficult to track down reliable coverage about ''them'' and not just the ''game''. Article as presented fails riting about fiction guidelines and erifiability policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W||WP:V)

Comment: no |reliable |verifiable sources independent of the topic to demonstrate any notability. Fails  as it stands also for being completely in-universe
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:WAF)