Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coinspinner

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 02:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Coinspinner[edit]

This is one of 12 swords with their own articles from Books of the Swords. I am concerned that including the poems about each sword might violate copyright, in addition I don't think that the 12 swords from the series of books each requires its own article and think a merge back to the main article and deletion of the 12 individual articles may be required--nixie 06:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As long as all the information is kept (which would probably mean keeping a good chunk of the text intact), there's no reason not to merge and redirect. But I wouldn't weep to see this kept as a separate article. Meelar (talk) 06:22, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no need for 12 separate articles. --fvw * 06:33, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
Merge, no redirect. The content is valuable enough that it should be merged, I suppose. The names of the swords are common enough (e.g. Stonecutter) that redirects don't seem wise. LizardWizard 08:24, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft. —Korath (Talk) 09:24, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC) The merge with the other eleven is acceptable. —Korath (Talk) 08:28, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Long time reader, first time author! My initial thought was to keep all the sword stuff on one page, but then as I was writing it started to get unweildy, so I split it up when I created it. I also found it made it easier to reference from one sword page to the next. However, I would be happy to merge all 12 articles into one and turn the seperate pages into redirects. I'd hate to merge it all into the main Books of the Swords because I plan on further editing, adding to, and revising that, but bow to the authority of the other wikipedians. Also, RE: copyright violation, I think that quoting the verse for each sword meets the criteria for fair use, in that its for educational purposes, the amount of material is small comparied to the 10+ books of source material, and are a small part of the total article contents. But again, I defer the more experienced wikipedians.Akerkhof 15:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, no redirect: of no significance or interest to anyone but a fan of the book series. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - this fancruft. I agree it is unlikely to interest any but a fan of the book series, but the same could be said for lots of topics covered here. There are apparently 10 books in the series, which is a substantial number of books, I assume they must have found some audience. "coinspinner"+"sword" gets 550 hits on Google, which is not too shabby. I'm not saying this series has achieved any where near the cultural impact of Star Wars or Star Trek, or The Simpsons, but these and other lesser franchises have spawned numerous articles here. For example see "Category:Star_Wars_characters". Johntex 18:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge somewhere. Kappa 20:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 03:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely "fancruft", but well written, topical, and directly related indeed to a very lengthy series by Saberhagen.Strong Keep. Being one who has read this whole fantasy epic a few times, I will also give the contributor a thumb's up. Now, where did he leave the other swords...? I hope the main article links to these other pages you have established? Weaponofmassinstruction 05:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Twelve articles on swords from a series of novels seems excessive. I suppose my protest won't go far when there are so many articles already in the Wikipedia about items from fictional universes, but I don't think those articles should be there, either. --BM 12:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge this somewhere appropriate. GRider\^talk 19:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I hope I'm doing this right and not messing up ettiquete, but since these are my articles and the main criticism is that they take up 12 seperate articles, I've gone ahead and merged them all into one at Twelve Swords of Power. I even think they all read that way better. Is it possible then to place redirects from the individual articles to each subheading? Do I wait until this VfD is complete?
You can create links directly to the section using the format [[Twelve Swords of Power#Coinspinner|Coinspinner]]. Unfortunately, page redirects can not yet reach down to a specific section. You can replace the content with #redirect [[Twelve Swords of Power#Coinspinner]] but it will still take the reader to the top of the Twelve Swords of Power page. Rossami (talk) 04:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think the redirect thing is a "not yet" thing as much as a "not" thing. Redirects get done server side, whereas going to sections is done client side. I suppose it could be hacked up to work with javascript, but it isn't possible to make redirects to sections work across the board. --fvw * 04:41, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
- Bummer. Well, I think the way its working right now isn't too bad. If someone punches in an individual Sword in the search, they will not be too astonished by what they find. I hope I've adequately addressed the concerns in this VfD. Akerkhof 04:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - The merged page looks like a really good solution, nice work--nixie 04:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah, quite. Nice job! --fvw * 04:48, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  - I think one article covering all twelve swords is a much better solution than twelve articles. Thanks for your work! Sorry to be a pain, but even better would be for the Twelve Swords of Power just to be merged into the Books of the Swords article, which is still a very short article, and anyway has a short section on the Twelve Swords of Power already, which could be expanded instead of linking to a separate article on the swords Why did you think the swords needed to be in a separate article? --BM 16:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Mainly because I intend to flesh out the universe and major characters on the main page, and an enormous Sword article in the middle of it might get to be a bit of the mess. There are about five, maybe six characters that need a paragraph or two, and four or five unique concepts to the Swords universe that require the same treatment. There's also a quibble I have with placement and useage of multiple spoiler tags that can be avoided entirely, I think, by keeping the two articles seperate. However, if it works out that the completed Books of the Swords article is still a bit light, and the swords article can fit neatly inside it without being distracting and confusing, I'll merge it. Deal? Akerkhof 22:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - If you had already done all this, there probably wouldn't be much argument now. You could just point to the fact that the main article was already over 32KB, and you needed to split out something, and decided to make it the sword detail. Some people might still say this topic doesn't merit so much detail and more than one article, but you'd have more of a point. Why not work on the main article some, including the sword material, until it gets near 32KB, *then* split out the sword stuff? A lot of people start with grand plans for a series fully-fleshed out articles, create an elaborate framework of multiple articles, most of which are initially stubs. Then they lose interest or don't have time to complete their plan, and we end up with all these related stubs on something that would have made more sense as a single article or at most a couple of articles. Someone coming along later wanting to work on the same topic is more or less stuck with the incomplete editorial plan of the person who started all the stubs, because it is a lot of work to get articles and redirects deleted -- and this might be discouraging enough that they don't bother cleaning things up or expanding the articles. And Wikipedia gets stuck with some more stuff that is a bit embarassing and which has to wait a long time to get cleaned up. --BM 17:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - By the way, redirecting to a section could be made to work easily if the server handled the Redirect pages by sending the HTTP Redirection Status Code (301) to the browser using the URL for the section. This would also be good in that bookmarks, links on search engines, etc, would end up being to the canonical URL/Article Title, rather than to redirect pages. But this isn't how things are currently done, and doing it this way would have the disadvantage of losing the "Redirected from" link that is currently displayed in a small font in the header of the pages after following a redirect. --BM 16:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.