Deletion of List of fictional swords (2nd nomination)

Comment: per Protonk's reasoning. Having looked over the article, I believe that for it to be properly split into separate articles on encyclopedic topics (ie. Swords in Norse mythology) rather than being a largely indiscriminate list (the attempt to make it discriminate via the lead sentence is weak and entirely ignored), a vast majority of the content would have to be scrapped and rewritten from scratch. Should there be articles about the use of swords in fiction? Absolutely. Should there be independent articles about notable fictional swords? Of course. Should there be an article which attempts to list every sword ever used in fiction? No, that is |indiscriminate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: The overly-broad criteria for inclusion violates .  Narrow down the subject and you could have several notable lists but an appearance in any fictional subject isn't notable in itself.  A List of swords in Arthurian literature is an example of a notable list of swords
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: I think Protonk makes some good points in his !vote that relate to your points here. There is not necessarily anything wrong with having lists of ''notable'' swords, but a "list of fictional swords" is not the best way to go about it; the scope is impossibly broad and leads to a mess of an article that has narry a |snowball's chance of ever becoming a |FL. Now, separate lists such as List of fictional swords in Anime, List of fictional swords in medieval literature, and List of swords in The Lord of the Rings series might, if properly referenced and asserting notability, be more discriminate lists. A parent article on Swords in fiction could point to each of these. However, given the current state of the article and its lack of references, it would seem that the best course of action is to delete and start over, creating the main Swords in fiction article first and working from there. This may even be a subject that a WikiProject or task force could take on
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:FL)

Comment: Fictional swords are a mainstay of fiction going back literally thousands of years and across a variety of different cultures. There exist examples both in classic mythology and in modern fiction. Swords are thus a unique example and are not "cruft".  Nor is there any no issue of |original research
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I'm not sure, but there might be coverage of "fictional swords" out there. That said, I'm not confident it justifies a list of every fictional sword ever imagined. Literally every "keep" vote insists sources are out there, and that this article just needs some attention. These editors should be given time to . But if efforts fail, we should be ready to admit proof doesn't exist, and re-nominate. Basically: "give it time, but no prejudice against re-nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:PROVEIT)

Comment: there is a decent article to be written about Swords in fiction and this is not it. What is needed to do the topic justice is not an |indiscriminate accumulation of single list entries and accompanying unreferenced cruft, but a logically contructed and organized article that heavily refers to the concept of fictional swords in a real-world context. If it does end up containing a list, it should be a carefully selected shortlist of perhaps half a dozen of the most important examples
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: Another listcrufty piece of unencyclopedic trash. Every entry to this list can be adequately merged into the articles for the piece of fiction that they have come from (if that's even necessary at all... I mean what's next? List of fictional armoires?) Every list such as this is a crass violation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: I'm hearing a lot of arguments based on the 'centrality' of these objects to the works of fiction they appear in.  This is the kind of argument that will come up under the proposed  and I'm not heartened by its use here.  ''Who says'', aside from editors here, that swords are central to any work of fiction?  Short form reviewers?  Critical analysis?  Author or director commentary?  How do we move that debate beyond having the people who vote "keep" say swords are central and the people who vote "delete" say swords are ephemeral
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)

Comment: btw, good move to relist this, Protonk).  To rebutt against the arguments of "it just needs cleanup", I did a cleanup of this page to only include entries that I felt reasonably could demonstrate notability a la the .  The reason why I believe the page should be deleted is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fictional_swords&diff=254692212&oldid=254283915 already showing itself, here are two unjustified edits that either merely link to the to article about the work of fiction, or are redlinks.  No attention was paid to the inclusion criteria stated at the begining, and we could add magical blinking inline comments that dance and sing showtunes, and they will still be ignored.  No one has undone these edits yet; no policy-aware editors appear to have interest in maintaining the page.  Yes, i know about the "No one's working on it" argument to avoid in deletion discussions, but I feel that essay is only appropriate for articles that genuinely show theoretical potential to exist as a good article.  I see no evidence that this could exist as a good article.  ''this doesn't mean I want to banish all information on all fictional swords'', just this list with the cumbersome scope.  I'm perfectly fine with someone finding articles talking about the importantance of the sword as a plot or literary device within works of fiction, and then writing a ''non-list'' article discussing Swords in fiction.  I'm also perfectly fine with someone splitting off list of mythological objects#swords into list of mythological swords or creating a new swords in mythology page and having a detailed article about that.  I have no doubt there are books/TV specials on that, in the least for specific regions of mythology (e.g. "Swords of Norse mythology").  Lots of people write about mythology, such that people would write specifically about the swords involved in multiple myths.  I don't believe people write about the swords involved in random ''modern fiction'' (read: fiction of the last century or two) very often.  The best I'd think you'll find are articles like "voter poll, top 10 swords in video games" or blogposts about "coolest anime sword designs".  The fictional swords that actually ''are'' worthwhile either already have their own articles (e.g. the lightsaber is inarguably engrained into popular culture), or can have articles created in the future when appropriate.  I feel this ''brief'' list should be sufficiently able to be represented in a category.  Maintaining articles like this in a good state is equivalent to the task of sysiphus.  Every time you delete entries they just come back the next day.  It's bait for new/inexperienced editors to make poor edits.  The title just sounds too much like a list that wants to be an exhaustive one.  and excited editors feel it is crucial that the object from their favorite work of fiction is included.  If instead, there came to be articles like I suggested above, it would be more evident that their favorite work of modren fiction does not belong in mythology, or that the swords in fiction article is prose discussing the overall topic, and exhaustive lists are not appropriate.  Both of these actions have nothing to do with this article, and thus I feel it should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as it stands, fails #INFO. Items in the list have no correlation with one another besides being a sword in a fictional work. A list of all fictional swords in existence is inappropriate for Wikipedia. An article discussing swords' role in fiction ''in general'' is appropriate (i.e. Swords in fiction per Reyk's argument
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: this encyclopedic article per  style of non-argument never being a valid reason for deletion and nor is calling a discriminate list (only swords, only fictional swords, only fictional swords covered in reliable sources) indiscriminate valid.  As far as editors adding content that should not be added to the article, well, any article we have is going to attract editors adding nonsense or unreferenced material to articles. Should we not have an article on Dictatorship, because comedians are going to add http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dictatorship&diff=90839928&oldid=90827032 this nonsense?  Sincerely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSCRUFT)