Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Type H Sword


 * 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. Discussion at this point is about whether to move/rename/merge, not whether to delete. Continue at Talk:Type H Sword. Dcoetzee 06:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Type H Sword

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sources of questionable credibility, although at least one editor thinks the book sources are reliable. No Google scholar hits on this topic; the 4 hits on "Type H Sword" are all for a 9th century Viking sword. (I think history is a "Society" topic, rather than "Science and Technology", but I could be wrong.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that a book published by Franz Steiner Verlag and Storia e Letteratura might not be reliable sources? Here is a better Google Scholar search than the one linked above. I have to point out that the nominator appears to have taken an irrational dislike to this article rather than look it objectively, as he edit-warred back the page numbers needed and hoax templates that I removed, even though both were blatantly obviously incorrect. We should be able to expect better from an administrator. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does this search bring no results?  Pundit | utter  19:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because coverage of the topic doesn't necessarily include that precise phrase. For example, the Shalev source in the article uses the phrase "Type H of the Aegean Late Bronze Age swords" and the Benzi source "Type H short sword". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, the name of the article is clearly wrong. For what it's worth, I first noticed it because it was created by an editor with no sense of reliable sources, who created a number of articles on clearly hoax concepts.  Or perhaps it should be merged (without redirect; i.e., move without redirect to Aegean Late Bronze Age swords of type H, and then merged) into Aegean Late Bronze Age swords, along with B, Q, Z, and all the other types.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict with S Marshall below) Now, at last, we've got this discussion on track, without the blatantly incorrect assertions that you have been making about the article, the sources and the topic. An article on Aegean Late Bronze Age swords would seem to be the best way to go here. Unless and until we have an article about the more notable Viking type H sword then there is no reason not to have a redirect, and when that happens we should have a disambiguation page. In any case this article's content should be preserved somewhere, and the title (at least without the capitalised "Sword") should not be a red link. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Type H, or any other type+letter combination with reference to swords, usually refers to the Petersen typology. A Type H sword is one with a pommel shape called a "cocked hat" that was popular with 10th Century Vikings.  (The Petersen typology is rather old and has since been replaced by the more comprehensive Oakeshott typology.)  I've never heard of a bronze age sword called a Type H.  If we decide that the sources in this current version of the article are reliable, then we will need to disambiguate.  Otherwise, the verdict should be "delete".  I don't mind which.— S Marshall  T/C 19:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)



It is unclear why there is any argument about the existence of the article. Salimbeti's very extensive website is referenced, which shows the typology clearly enough (there are questions on the citation in the article but he is published in this field, though not an academic). A disambiguation to avoid confusion with the Petersen sword typology may be in order but there is a lack of a decent Viking Sword article detailing the Petersen typology (it isn't even mentioned in Viking sword), so such a disambiguation could be considered pre-emptive and in breach of wikipedia policies. I'd vote for keep but with a clearer title Monstrelet (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary; it's clear from the references that "Type H Sword" is not used to refer to this concept. Even if everything you say as to the typology is accurate, the article should be moved without redirect to Aegean Late Bronze Age swords of type H with a possible redirect from Type H swords of the Aegean Late Bronze Age (or some other capitalization or reordering of the words).  It's not a "pre-emptive disambiguation", it's a clear note that Peterson typology is the primary use of Type H Sword, so the article should not be at Type H Sword.  The "primary use" guideline does not mean "primary use within Wikipedia".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2011 (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.