Lore talk:Feyfolken (artifact)

DeletionEdit

So, for the purposes of adding another page to the Talk pages for deleted articles category, here we are. The "artifact" Feyfolken is an item in a story by a fictional person in a fictional book. There is no other mention of this item outside of this fictional book, leaving it at the point of having an article for an invented item within an invented story within an invented story. Where this article can be saved is beyond me, but "according" to our policy, because the author of this page removed the prod (without an explanation I might add), I must go to the talk page to state my case and fill someones ears with lots of noise, and hope to the eight or nine that someone decides to look here one day and agree with me, and then delete the page. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 01:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, for the reasons above. Until such time as it appears in-game (outside of the fictional story) there is no reason for this page. Echo (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I am in concurrence. This page is very rather questionable. Fullerton ﴾_talk﴿ 07:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don’t want to argue especially given how relatively new on the forums I am, out of curiosity what is discrete about this article when compared to Fearstruck, another artifact only known by in-game stories Lguard _talk 17:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The artifact of Fearstruck is directly mentioned in the respective book, and the Scholar's Note at the bottom somewhat adds to the fact that it did exist once. The Feyfolken quill (as Silencer pointed out) didn't just appear in a book, but in a (fictional) story told by a fictional character in a book, making the source even less trustworthy. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 17:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense thanks for the response.Lguard _talk 18:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(←) The content of this page has been added to Lore:Clavicus Vile#Artifacts by Lguard. I agree that this page should be deleted; but what does everyone think about keeping the information on the Clavicus Vile page? I’m unsure myself, as I can see it having some relevance there—but as the artifact likely doesn’t even exist it might be misleading to include it. —Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It does seem relevant to mention on that page, though it would probably work better if book info was moved to a Notes subheading. Echo (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the reasoning for deletion of this article, and agree that the info in the Vile article would be better recorded as a note, since the mere existence of the quill is in doubt. --Xyzzy ^Talk 19:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)