Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapier


 * 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 speedy keep. The article isn't perfect, but few are. It may need some work to be up to an acceptable standard, but it doesn't even look that bad to me. There is no reason for deletion. J Milburn 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Rapier

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Repeated violation of Wikipedia policies: "No original research," "Neutral point of view" and "Verifiability" Oglach98 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The article appears to be well-sourced, though every article could use more sources. Could the nom specify the violations in the article? Which parts are NPOV, for example? Extensive enough problems do warrant deletion, but if it's just a section, then that's a cleanup issue and not a deletion issue. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This nomination is ridiculous. The article is good and slowly being tightened and polished though a community peer review and editing process. It is only one or two people who have an agenda that have a problem with it (and no, I am not talking about the entries by Ranp). Someone is irate because the claims of the survival of contiguous rapier systems are being challenged. Well they should be--no one who has made such claims has ever produced any documented evidence. Besides, in the general scheme of things, this is a minor point--9 out of 10 users don't care about that and just want to read about what a rapier is and the historic masters who taught its use.Marozzo 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The sole problem is the section on Modern Practicioners. The rest of the article is OK, but the sections at the end have been continuously biased and unsourced. I would certainly expect those who deny the existence of modern traditions to defend their point of view here in this discussion...and that's fine for them to do. But since they are unable to cite any factual evidence (they state, instead, that a "negative does not require poof or a citation"--a methodology which could be used to uphold any number of falsehoods--or they cite forum postings or their own internet essays), their opinion (passed off as "fact") does not belong in this article, and certainly not to the exclusion of all other viewpoints. Due to the highly political nature of the various viewpoints held by modern practitioners, this section is never going to amount to anything other than a continuous argument. These viewpoints are not going to be reconciled any time soon. If we could just get rid of the "Modern Practicioners" section altogether, the article would then fall into Wiki-policy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oglach98 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, that's not the way it works. When you make a claim (for example, "I am a medical doctor"), it is not up to the rest of the world to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claim--in this case with your MD (or DO). The matter of a lineage or a master's certification works the same way. If I call myself a maestro di scherma, it's not up to you to prove me wrong, it's up to me to provide the certification, and information about the certifying body.


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and Close. None of the nom's reasons are valid. Especially per his last statement that his problem is with the tone of one section of the article that can easily be removed or rewritten. AfD is not the place for this discussion. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and Close - per the above reasons. The article seems abslolutely fine. R udget zŋ 19:27, 15 November 2007 (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.