Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Components of medieval armour


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator.Topic is notable. (non-admin closure) Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Components of medieval armour

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced old article, a case when someone confused encyclopedia with a hosting place of an image description. At best, it's very incomplete list that needs renaming and verification. I am surprised we don't have an article about medieval armour, and maybe this could even be salvaged into making one, but at the same time there is likely a problem with even defining this concept (chronological range and geographical scope - European armor is not the same as Asian, for example). Not sure what is the best course of action here - rename and a list and leave unreferenced(?), rename to medieval armour (ditto but will need more rewriting) or apply WP:TNT? Certainly can't leave this as it is as "components of Foo" is not a notable concept (which is why we don't have articles like components of firearms, components of T-34, components of mobile phones, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree that this isn't a great list. However, in theory it looks helpful especially since we lack a proper "medieval armour" article. Yes it's unreferenced, but there most certainly sources available since almost all linked articles have sources. It would need some overhaul, but I believe deleting it would not be the right thing to do. The thing I would immediately scrap is the section about Japanese armor – that one feels really off, as some are just links to images. Simply have a "see also" there that points to Japanese armour (for which, surprisingly, there is an article). --LordPeterII (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This just seems to be a drive-by nomination of an article because it lacks sources. But sources are very easy to find and so WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST apply.  Examples include:
 * How to Read European Armor
 * European Armour, Circa 1066 to Circa 1700
 * The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Weapons
 * Brassey's Book of Body Armor
 * Arms and Armour
 * A Record of European Armour and Arms Through Seven Centuries
 * Arms and Armour, from the 9th to the 17th Century
 * Armour and Weapons
 * See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: per. nom. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The nom doesn't especially propose deletion; it talks vaguely about rewriting and renaming. It's classic WP:NOTCLEANUP, confusing AfD with AfC. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's easy to forget what people do with encyclopaedias. How many kids through history have found themselves writing about medieval castles and knights, and turned to an encyclopaedia to find the names and functions of the different bits of armour? We would be failing in our duty at a very, very fundamental level if we didn't tell them. This page may need a lot of work, particularly with references, to bring it up to scratch, but it's a subject that ought to be here, and there's definitely salvageable stuff on the page. Elemimele (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and possibly rename to List of medieval armour components. This is basically a list article, and as list articles go, it's a far better list than the usual crap-list articles that can be easily substituted by a category. Each entry has not only an illustration but also its own article with its own sources. Sources are not needed here. And AFD is the wrong venue for discussing cleanup. I recommend the nominator withdraw this. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think this article is WP:ITSUSEFUL (per Elemimele) too but can you direct me to a policy that states lists don't need references? If it can be found, I'll withdraw it and rename it myself. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lists absolutely do need references. Of course they do. But the point is, these references exist, conveniently already in the listed articles, and via the examples listed by Andrew above. And as per, this discussion isn't about the article being in a bad shape (you are right about that), it's about whether it is possible to overcome this bad shape. If you want to delete every single article that needs rework, you would have to nominate each and every one currently tagged with unreferenced. And I can guarantee you that there are A LOT of these XD But most of them just need work, and shouldn't be outright deleted per WP:NOTCLEANUP. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't understand either the nomination or the comments about this being a poor list - it's clear in scope, well organised, the listed items are all clearly described and illustrated. Feel free to retitle it to "list of..." if you must, but that's not an AfD matter. This is exactly the sort of content I would expect to find in a general purpose encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. While I rarely find WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments sufficient, rethinkign this I belive this can be rescued. Ping User:Uncle G for a fun project I may even try to help with a bit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.