Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flaming sword (effect)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus is not to delete. A merge is possible, though. Default keep. Tone 19:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming sword (effect)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a WP:DICDEF and a search for such a thing only came up with how to make a flaming sword in After Effects. Does not seem to be independently notable as an article or pass WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is an interesting article, I added in popular culture as a section for expansion, with game of thrones as a example and ref. It is used as the google featured snippet and is encyclopaedia content. --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some adjustment of the theatrical property article, now I think that theatrical property#Prop weapons is an adequate place where things such as flaming swords can be described. It certainly still doesn't require its own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing particularly exceptional about this special effect, vs. for example Stunt man on fire or Gun with unlimited ammo, GoT nothwithstanding. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't delete things because they don't subjectively seem exceptional to individual editors. That way lies chaos; we tried it years ago. And as pointed out, the nomination's use of an initialism is belied by the actual policy that the initialism redirects to, one of the errors that these shorthand redirects lead to. We delete things for being unexpandable beyond a permastub. What did you do to check that that was the case, if anything? Uncle G (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The nomination's claim that this is a dictionary definition seems to be the classic error of misreading a stub -- see WP:DICDEF for an explanation. There are plenty of sources which cover the theatrical effect including Pyrotechnics ; The Development of the Theatre; Secrets of the Sideshows; The Making of Theatre History;Theatre of Fire: special effects in early English and Scottish theatre; &c. It might be sensible to combine this with the article Flaming sword (mythology) as the effect will usually be used to simulate the myths and legends. But adding sources and developing the content are done by ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Andrew - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge Per above and Andrew Taewangkorea (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A case where a stub is mistaken for a dictionary definition. See WP:DICDEF Taewangkorea (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or can be merged into flaming sword (mythology) Taewangkorea (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since so many people are voting "per Andrew", I feel I should probably point out in his sources, all the mentions of a flaming sword are trivial, if not completely unrelated to the article. To the closing admin, these should be invalidated unless he comes forward with proof of significant mentions in reliable sources rather than just throwing out names._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.