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. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Wheres Dan (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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. Heiro 19:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. Heiro 19:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wheres Dan (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.