Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese swords

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. John254 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese swords

Superseded by Category:Chinese swords, lacks any information about the weapons mentioned that would be useful in a list. Burzmali (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the reasons above:

Keep The category which supposedly supersedes it, doesn't seem to work. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Try again, I had a typo in the name. Burzmali (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is supposed to be a quick reference for various sword types, but both articles could be renamed as 'List of Chinese swords' and 'List of Japanese swords' if that is better. Aldis90 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They already were, that's the problem I have with these articles. Burzmali (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists can provide organization and information that categories can't. Though these lists don't yet, the subjects seems apt for the additional organization and information that a list-like article can provide. Keep and improve. Dekkappai (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Chinese Swords and List of Japanese Shorts ViperSnake151 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Katana for Japanese swords. "Katana" (or Nihonto) is the Japanese name of Japanese swords, and the article Katana is already a fairly extensive article. Chinese swords may be mede a DAB page with Dao (sword) and Jian for the same reason as Katana/Japanese swords. --Saintjust (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without redirect or rename for Chinese swords, no opinion on the Japanese swords article. I have added some info from a ref on Chinese swords, and I think that the subject is worthy of a full article. The list-like elements can be moved to a separate list article, if need be.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page contains at least minimal information on the history of swords in China. This is exactly the kind of article that should be left to see if it grows, or left as a perfectly OK stub. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Chinese swords article is perfectly fine. The Japanese swords article should be moved to Japanese sword (singular form) and turned into a disambiguation page. Japanese sword is currently a redirect to Katana, but there are multiple types of Japanese swords, enough to warrant it being a disambiguation page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No AfD criteria seem to have been mentioned, or which are even applicable here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. —Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename the Chinese swords page, hey, if the Japanese swords got to be named as nihonto, so does the Chinese swords be named as dao or do. Merge the Japanese swords page to Katana, and Move it to Nihonto for classification purposes. Nihonto is a better overall word. MythSearcher^talk 06:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Katana is only one of many kinds of Japanese swords, so merging Japanese swords there would be less effective. Nihonto would be better redirected to Japanese swords, with Japanese swords made into a disambig page to point to all the different types of Japanese sword articles (including Katana). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Katana is not "only one of many kinds" of Japanese swords. Katana is the primary kind of nihonto. The others such as wakizashi are only the shorter variants of nihonto, and were usually used together with Katana as an auxiliary sword. They all share pretty much the same origin and history. It's not like different groups of swordsmiths from different eras came up with various kinds of Japanese swords. --Saintjust (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look, I'm not going to argue with you as you've already wasted my time elsewhere. I don't care if they share a similar history and/or origin. Go look at Japanese swords. See all those articles? Obviously there are enough different kinds of Japanese swords to have a whole slew of different articles. That is why I'm strongly suggesting Japanese swords be turned into a disambig page. That would even work with Farix's suggestion below. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Those are all kinds of katana/nihonto. Katana/nihonto is a category above them. Putting katana and Dotanuki (for example) together in the same category is like putting Sedan and Honda Civic in the same category "cars" (when "Sedans" should be a subcategory that includes the article Civic).
        Besides, there aren't separate articles for katana and nihonto. "Katana" has been the general article on Japanese swords that describes the common origin, history, and classification of Japanese swords. On Japanese Wikipedia also, Japanese katana is described in the article nihonto because there is no merit in making an independent article for each. While it's true that strictly speaking katana only refers to the longer variants of nihonto, the words katana and nihonto are often used synonymously in the general discourse because katana is the primary kind of nihonto and it's the most widely recognized name. (Fewer people know terms like "wakizashi," while the recognition of the word "katana" is close to universal.) --Saintjust (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and use WP:SUMMARY style to give brief descriptions of each type of sword or weapon. --Farix (Talk) 03:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some people thing there'sa rule that a category makes a list unnecessary, or justifies deletion of one. They are just plain wrong--the policy says the opposite, that both have their own purposes,and are permitted to both exist. DGG (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.