Sword of Kas

Sword of Kas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable fictional object with too few substantial third-party references to support a Wikipedia article. Listing at AfD after a contested {{prod}}. Mikeblas (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Nom. Originating article is already fairly large and a merge is not suitable for a minor item in the book series. scope_creep (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect into Vecna - notable artifact in Vecna's history, in fact there is already a section about the item on Vecna's page. BOZ (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into Kas the Bloody-Handed. Subject does have 3rd-party reference & is notable enough to have appeared outside the game.--Robbstrd (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn't even a stub. It's definitely a short paragraph belonging in someone elses' article. Like Vecna, or Kas himself. Howa0082 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Very Weak Merge into Kas the Bloody-Handed (almost opposing). - Here's the difficulty as I see it. The sword of Kas would appear to be more well-known than the character Kas. It was included as a magical sword in the first edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide (and even as far back as Eldritch Wizardry), with a little information about Vecna and Kas (and the sword itself). Personally, I think that the information at "Kas" should be reverse merged to the sword's article. (Though better would be to merge both - and then redirect - to Vecna, expanding the fictional history a bit, and clarifying the importance of the artifact, since neither seems important without reference to Vecna.) But those other articles aren't currently under discussion, hence my initial comments. - jc37 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're trying to solve a problem here. Suggesting solutions that don't deal with a lack of secondary sources isn't helpful. Vecna doesn't have secondary sources either. Jay32183 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're mistaken--please review the reference sections on both articles--the source by Iron Hammer Graphics is independent of TSR/WotC.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article seems to have a lot of references but needs specific sourcing of the claims. A merge may well be appropriate given the size of the Kas the Bloody Handed article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary sources are required for stand alone articles. Jay32183 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable within the litature of xD&D. It is sourced. Support a merge with Kas as per jc37. Web Warlock (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fictional concepts need to be notable in the real world, WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Jay32183 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: It is notable because it was one of the first of a half of dozen or so "Magical Artifacts" introduced to the the D&D game through the original D&D supplement Eldritch Wizardry. This concept lead to the expansion of artifacts in the 1st Ed. AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, gave us the Mayfair RoleAid's books "Fantastic Treasures" and to the modern day with 3.5 Edition D&D books. Web Warlock (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what notability means, read WP:N. Jay32183 (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this fictional sword is a little more than a prop for the stock character, "Kas the Bloody-Handed". Compared with Hrunting or Excalibur on which the idea of a sword that empowers or distinguishes its wielder is based, it has no reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability outside of the Greyhawk canon. There is no myth surrounding this prop, and therefore no reason to keep. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - more information added to article entry to establish notability. More will be added later. Web Warlock (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per efforts to improve article that contains references and concerns an aspect of a notable game series. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Le Grand Roi, others. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]