Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the 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. Kept as notable topic per WP:SPLIT. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of the sword[edit]

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

Appears to be a content fork (WP:CFORK). While the subject is notable, it is covered more in depth on Sword. Enwebb (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". Therefore, no case for deletion is being made here. See also WP:SPLIT. Andrew D. (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conment the Sword article is at 71 kb's as of writing this, so a split wouldn't seem unwarranted. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title changed to Chronology of bladed weapons: Title of original article in catalan (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q11916205&oldid=31040745)--Mcapdevila (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. ;Arguments against the fusion with sword

That chronology it's a compilation that includes diverse and relatively uneven documents about different families of bladed weapons: swords, dress-swords, sabers, rapiers, foils, machetes, daggers, knives, arrowheads, etc..., with the sword references being the most numerous but not the unique among the other listed references of the rest of bladed weapons. The reason to group them into a single list responds to a goal for simplification.. instead of making a different chronology article for each type of bladed weapon.

Some of the facts included.. not directly linked with sword

1146. Earliest clear references to naginata, which is not a sword
1540. "Pirotechnia", work of Vannoccio Biringuccio, armourer of Siena. Among other topics it deals with some iron mines and the reduction of the mass in a forge with bellows.
1742. "Dictionnaire Universel De Commerce", Jacques Savary des Bruslons, Philémon-Louis Savary. French name of the composite leaves with iron core and steel exterior ("lame de ettofe").^[54]
1750. News about the "varnished iron" or "iron" mines of Mondragón.^[55]
1760. Carlos III of Spain orders to Luis de Urbina, infantry colonel, a report on the bladed weapons factories of Toledo, Valencia, Zaragoza and Barcelona

At the time of this writing it's linked (called) as a sub-article from the history paragraph of the following articles

Wikipedia talk:Summary style#Multiple mains

This can be thought of as layering inverted pyramids where the reader is first shown the lead section for a topic, and within its article any section may have a {{Main|<subpage name>}} hatnote or similar link to a full article about the subtopic summarized in that section. For example, Yosemite National Park#History and History of the Yosemite area are two such related featured articles. Thus, by navigational choices, several different types of readers each get the amount of details they want or they need.--Mcapdevila (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree now that it a justified content fork, especially as the focus has shifted from swords only to all bladed weapons. Thanks to everyone who has weighed in so far. Enwebb (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2018 (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.