Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCA armoured combat

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 Speedy Keep. DonIago (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SCA armoured combat

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

Almost exclusively primary sources despite being tagged for such concens for over 3 years. Subject likely doesn't garner a great deal of attention from independent sources. Probably best off having relevant material merged to Society for Creative Anachronism. DonIago (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - My compliments to Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) on what I would call a massive improvement of the article. My concerns regarding primary sourcing have been more than adequately addressed. DonIago (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SCA armoured combat is a martial art (combat sport) in it’s own right… done, in a tournament structure, by thousands of people in around 20 different countries, and has been around for some decades now. When you compare that to some martial arts that are done by a handful of people , in one country (like Bartitsu or Pojo) that have their own page… it would certainly seem worthy of having its own article. To a degree, it sits as a stand alone concept, in that it is a combat sport that many people do (and sometimes not wearing historical clothing), and they don’t do other general SCA activity. The other issue here is, the SCA general article page is already too long – there’s not really any room to move the material on this page into it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many people do it is, for encyclopedic purposes, less of a factor than how much coverage it has received from non-primary sources, IMO. If it's received more coverage from non-primary sources than the article currently suggests, the article should be updated. If it has not received such coverage, then I question whether it's notable enough to merit its own article at this time. DonIago (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, as per WP:N I have now removed all associated sources, (works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it) and replaced them with reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I agree, in the old form, there was a lot of SCA associated secondary materal, with that removed, it should now meet WP:GNG. There's significant coverage, there is in fact more that I haven't referred to, but IMHO 10 articles or so is enough for a Wikipedia article of this size. I hope this satisfies the WP:N issue. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nice job in dealing with the issue - that should have been done long ago.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:23, 9 July 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.