Talk:List of Shannara artifacts

Change title to List of Shannara artifacts?[edit]

Shannara artifacts → List of Shannara artifacts — Given that this article is in list format, as opposed to some comprehensive depiction of the concept of Shannara objects, I submit it should be moved to List of Shannara artifacts. Any objections? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Jafeluv (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?[edit]

This has come to the attention of a number of editors now. Seems unreasonable to expect an article this large to have a single reference. Why has this not been addressed in the seven years it has existed?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction...no references. The single inline citation was to an archive copy that no longer exists. I think its clearly AFD time for this.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the trouble I recently got into for my work in gradually and methodically attempting to improve a subset of the Shannara articles over the past several years—from an editor who has been involved in the authoring of quite a number of the Shannara articles in the early years—that might help you to gain a bit of insight into the matter. If asked, I'd be happy to provide a few links for you to review that mess. N2e (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article has no sources, appears to be unnotable, and appears to be original research[edit]

I have boldly removed a small amount of unsourced text from the article in order to now pause for a bit, and allow for some possibility that more article- or topic-specific editors may wish to dispute it under the WP:BRD process. Or more helpfully, add a source(s) for those claims that would demonstrate notability and show that the claims are not original research.

In general, I have removed only a single section of totally unsourced assertions that had been fact-tagged for over two months, despite the article having the same problem in all sections, and for all of the listed artifacts. As usual, in my edit summary, I have politely invited other editors to add the text back in if they have a verifiable source they are able to cite for the (temporarily) removed claims.

It also appears to me that the topic is unnotable, and there is no indication of notability cited for any of the artifacts in this fictional work, so none of course existed for the single artifact that was described in the section I removed. It also appears, as another editor has noted above, that the article is composed principally, or entirely, of original research.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article to be a perfect candidate for AFD.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree with you. But I've always tended toward a gradualist approach where just the long-challenged material get's removed, over time, if no editor cares to source it. But if you, or any editor, wishes to propose AfD, I would definitely support for non-notable fancruft. N2e (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]