Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knight against Samurai

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. postdlf (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knight against Samurai

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

This article is pure speculation (as acknowledged in its second sentence) as no such combat ever took place. Given the historical realities such combat was totally impossible (European-style knights couldn't travel to Japan, and vice-versa, and there was never any likelihood of Japanese and European armies clashing elsewhere) and speculating on how it would have turned out is pointless and not a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete". Aside from what is already mentioned: Knights and samurai lived in completely different environments, their arms, armour and training were adapted to different environments ...and a knight wasn't one thing. Knights were radically different, depending on what period or place they were from. The same is true of samurai. Speculation on which would win in a fight, is essentially pointless. It might still be amusing, none-the-less, but it has no place on Wikipedia.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a summary of a unnotable article by an unnotable author about an unnotable subject. This belongs on Deadliest Warrior, on the "History" Channel. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lacks WP:RSs. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. - About the Author:Having pursued the craft since 1980, John Clements is one of the world's foremost authorities on Medieval and Renaissance fighting skills. Clements has authored two books and more than a dozen magazine articles on historical swordplay. A leader in historical fencing studies, he has researched swords and sword combat in ten countries and taught seminars on the subject in eight. He has lectured and demonstrated at numerous museums and universities and is a frequent consultant on Medieval and Renaissance combative systems. He works full-time teaching and writing on historical European fighting arts. About the topic - is a historical reenactment of a hypothetical battle. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Clements is far from "an established expert" or "one of the world's foremost authorities". He himself claims that about himself. He is a self proclaimed "expert".

He has been able to convince some documentary maker of his qualifications, but not anyone who studies swords or swordsmanship. No one aside from members of his own organization (which is isolationist, and over which he has absolute power), in which anyone who questions him could be kicked out for being disloyal (as per their membership agreement). No one (outside of ARMA) in the study of swords, or Historical European Swordsmanship regards him as an authority. His views are not accepted, or regarded as sensible. His research methods are seen as very poor, to put it mildly. He is mostly either ignored, or seen as a joke. Also, he has no qualifications when it comes to the study of Japanese swords or swordsmanship.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable speculation from a unreliable source. If this becomes a hot topic among historians, we can discuss it then. Until that time, this is at about the same level as a forum debate on Superman vs the Hulk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete but the historical criticism is irrelevant. I tend to agree with the policy points above, but it's not up to us to evaluate the historical viability of a topic. The question is do enough reliable sources talk about "knight versus samurai" to merit an article (see the great Tiger versus lion article for precedent). If message board posts, blogs, and cosplay videos were considered reliable sources it'd be notable in spades, but I'm not really seeing anything that would work. The tone/style is also entirely unencyclopedic. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - it might be different if there were multiple sources discussing this but right now it is one non-notable author about a trivial topic.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just to be safe I had a look at our Deadliest Warrior page to make sure that this wasn't covered in an episode, and it wasn't, so I agree that this is a little too far off the beaten path to be salvageable. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What an utterly pointless article. I can't even determine exactly what it's about. As far as I can tell, it just seems to be promoting (badly) a single hypothetical essay by a single individual. This is not encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – we don't need articles about speculation and things that will probably never happen. Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' - Just like TomStar81 says, it is like an episode from Deadliest Warrior. Sorry but a single source does not an article make. Way too much original research here. - Pmedema (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above WP:OR--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks WP:RS and looks like WP:OR. Anotherclown (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2013 (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.