Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elmslie typology

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elmslie typology

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the typology in reliable sources. I found several mentions, but they were brief. toweli (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The typology is potentially important and is often referred to but full publication and critical discussion are hard to find. In fact, this article is one of the fullest detailed explanations easily available, yet is lacking in citations back to RS original publication or critical coverage. Would suggest we need an article on this typology but serious revision is in order to tackle the source issues. Monstrelet (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A necessary counterpart to the Oakshott system for double-edged blades. I agree that better sourcing is necessary, but I see no need to trim back to only the sourced parts. Most low-rated articles lack full sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some digging and it seems the entire system can be traced to this website and its owner, James G. Elmslie [1]. The site is no longer live but has been thoroughly archived at IA. One would expect this system to be listed under "Research" [2], but it isn't. As far as I can tell, it was made popular by this YouTube video, whose creator also uploaded diagrams to DeviantArt [3]. The YouTube video makes claims of increasing acceptance by the academic/museum community, so I searched Google Scholar and found several results [4]. Examples include [5][6][7][8] (note that the links 6 and 7 are parts 2 and 3 of one work). These cite the typology itself to two different versions of a book titled "The Sword: Form and thought", one from 2015 with first editor Grotkamp-Schepers and one from 2019 with first editor Deutscher. Links: [9][10]. I am working on verifying this book citation, but based on what I've found so far, this typology is indeed published in academic literature and is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 10:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now checked the 2019 version of the book "The Sword: Form and Thought". Elmslie's work is indeed referenced on pages 169, 173, and 175, cited to "pers. comm.", which a quick search tells me means "Personal Communications" (with the author of the papers in question). I would argue that this shows Elmslie is a subject-matter expert as well, and sources he publishes himself (SPS) can be considered scholarly and reliable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's no significant coverage, just mentions, and yet you're advocating for a keep? The responses so far have been strange, if it were really that significant there wouldn't be any issues finding a lot of discussion of the typology. toweli (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning brief Merge to Classification of swords#Modern systems (section currently non-existent, presumably more than just Elmslie and Oakeshott should be listed): I have added the MA project in as a delsort since there's likely to be an relevant overlap of interest/expertise with HEMA practitioners. It exists, and it's useful to have it bluelinked from articles where it's mentioned (currently Falchion and Messer (sword), if it should so remain). It also has no significant independent coverage, and extremely limited uptake. In cases like this, the details available externally (archived) are there for those who want to dig into them. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:36, 16 June 2024 (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.