Talk:Type H of the Aegean Late Bronze Age swords

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Classical

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Deletion reasons[edit]

If the article creator is not blocked, he will undoubtedly remove the PROD, so I'm reporting the reasons here.

All sources appear to be self-published, and the printed books do not have a page number reference. The name is probably not scholarly. Only Google scholar references to "Type H Sword" are a 9th century Viking sword.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The printed book now does have a page number reference, but, for credibility purposes, you'll have to explain why there are no Google scholar hits for this "Type H Sword", and few for the publishers. Perhaps this field isn't indexed by Google scholar? In any case, I cannot agree with the removal of tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The printed books (not book) had page number references right from the beginning, so your placement of {{page numbers needed}}, and especially your edit-warring reinstatement of that template, were obviously conterfactual, and the sort of disruptive editing that I would not expect from anyone, let alone an administrator. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still question the reliability of the printed sources. I never heard of either publisher, and neither has Google scholar. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your protestations are getting more and more bizarre. Here are Google Scholar searches for "Franz Steiner Verlag" and "Storia e Letteratura". A mathematician should be able to tell the difference between 0 and 49,400 or 11,300. Why don't you try entertaining the possibility that your initial gut reaction to this article might have been incorrect? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The news gossipers...(rolls eyes) Concerning the Vikings and the H-type, makes sense because the Sea Peoples have been attributed to displaying the same horned-helmets centuries before.

Wheres Dan (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes absolutely no sense. Are you now saying the tribe of Dan are VIKINGS? Please read WP:Original research, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, soon, or your career here will be very short indeed. He iro 19:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "Dan" was already blocked. As for the article, is the Viking type H sword related to the Aegean type H sword. That would be interesting, if sourced. He was blocked about 4 minutes after his comment, but I read about the block before I read the comment.

As for my initial reaction, "Dan" (the article creator)'s comment suggests I was probably correct. If there was something appropriate in the article as created, it was by accident. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although Wheres Dan is blocked, I have to point out that Vikings didn't wear horned helmets, so that connection is a load of hogwash. As for the "news gossipers" remark, it is inappropriate (borderline racist) to dismiss Arthur Rubin's comments like that.

Regarding the Google scholars issue: "Type H sword" doesn't pull up anything related to this article. As for Franz Steiner Verlag, it appears that his work is not discussing the Type H sword at all, but Type 7 H. As for Storia e Letteratura, why are we citing a literary history journal for non-textual archaeological information? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST initial assessment[edit]

Little more than a stub but referenced so classed as a weak start. Needs considerably more content to explain context of the weapon and its significance. An illustration of the weapon from a non-copyright source should be a priority and a map to orient the reader in the Bronze Age Aegean would be very useful.Monstrelet (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize[edit]

I changed the raw {{:Category:Swords|]] to

but further refinement is likely. I wasn't sure whether Aegean is part of "Europe", so it could be Category:Ancient European swords.