Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Windsor

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 delete. KTC (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Windsor

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant independent coverage and no supporting evidence to show notability in his field.Mdtemp (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no independent sources at all. My own search didn't find the significant independent coverage I believe is necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the writer of the article. I've added some internal links. Windsor (with Arne Koets) is one of a handful of people in the world that are experts in HEMA, and are professional Sword masters (that is they, teach and travel internationally, as a full time profession). He has written 6 books on the subject, and is one of the top experts in Fiore (if not the top expert) in Italian style Longsword. He's taught internationally. Bascially, he is one of the most well known, if not the most well known expert....anyone doing Italian Longsword would have heard of him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being professional at anything isn't an indicator of notability. Is there any chance you can link online to any of the references you added? Just looking at the titles doesn't convince me since I see articles on stage combat and video games which doesn't seem to "address the topic directly and in detail" as WP:GNG requires. As I said in my comment my search didn't find online evidence (yes I know online is not a requirement), but it would help to show he's notable. After all, the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two links, as you requested. However the other articles that refer to him as an expert are not free journals, they are on the Factiva news services if you have access to that?. I agree, being professional at something doesn't mean you are an expert, but when you tie it in with the fact people all over the world are asking him to run seminars, he has been doing it for 20 years, he is referred to as an expert in articles, Game Journals are asking his advice on Sword fighting.... and he has written 7 books on the topic, the overall picture would indicate he seems to know his stuff Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I can't access Factiva. The problem is that I just see passing mentions. I have seen many articles on martial artists who are considered "experts" and travel extensively giving seminars deleted because of a lack of significant coverage. I'm not saying he's not an expert, just that I haven't yet seen the coverage necessary to support the claim he's WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Professional demand does not indicate notability. Only whether or not publications have thought this worth writing about. The same goes for his books. I don't think GNG has been established here if we're excluding his mixed martial arts career. Mkdw ^talk 19:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only significant source appears to be a podcast on the "Chivalry Today" website and I don't know if that's reliable or independent. It may be, but that's not enough to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2015 (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.