Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ngao (weapon)

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. Lourdes 09:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ngao (weapon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not sure if this is a hoax or not, but most of the English Google search results are Wikipedia mirrors, and the few that aren't appear to have got their information from this article. From what I can tell, Ngao is simply the Thai word for halberd or Guandao. In fact, the Thai article th:ง้าว appears to be about the Guandao, or some other Chinese weapon (not a Thai one). Adam9007 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is certainly not a hoax. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The book Phil Bridger linked is a publication of the National Museum at Bangkok (I couldn't find their collection online). I'm not at all an expert on weapons, so I can't help in deciding if this is different from, for instance, a halberd. One commercial site which once sold such a weapon (https://www.ashokaarts.com/shop/rare-polearm-from-thailand-dha-blade-and-ankus-) refers to a similar weapon at the Royal Armouries in Leeds. Looking through the Leeds collection, the closest thing I can find is an elephant goad, which could be another appropriate merge/redirect destination.. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Definitely not a hoax. Not similar to the halberd. Very similar to the guandao, though I'm not sure whether merging is warranted. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:,That's right I don't believe it's a hoax, but may be merge is the answer Alex-h (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments The article contains (ง้าว,ของ้าว) which translates to Halberd but it doesn't appear to resemble any shown at Pole weapon. I would never consider merging unsourced content as that is just transferring issues. Add to that some Admins don't consider "merge" a part of AFD even though the lead states "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged...". The description in the article seems similar to the fu tao ngao (tiger-head hook sword, pp.26) which looks similar to the long-handled broadsword minus the hook (pp. 25). If there is a connection then there is a reference but if not then delete as unsource-able. Otr500 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are you getting the translation as "halberd"? Google Translate is rubbish, and should be disregarded. The subject is clearly not unsourceable, as a source has been given above. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I hesitate to !vote keep because I would struggle to bring the article to an acceptable standard. That said, the translation as halberd seems to have a couple sources, which lead me to believe that it is a bad translation. One, in a number of similar to identical google books based discussions of Krabi Krabong, "ngao" is said to translate to "halberd" (see [1], [2]). Two, in Richard Cushmaitn's translation of "The Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya" published by The Siam Society in 2000.. The Royal Chronicitles of Ayutthaya. The Siam Society, 2000, which is discussed and criticized here.[3] My current inclination is that given the variation in what ngao refers to, a short page like the current one with some information about some of the various usages might be nice (usages spanning from "long handled sword" and maybe "halberd"[4] to "war scythe"[5]). Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: @ User:Smmurphy if the subject does translate to Halberd then why not merge and redirect? Otr500 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's pretty clear from what User:Smmurphy wrote that reliable sources disagree about whether this should be translated as Halberd, so this needs thought rather than a simplistic solution. And a Halberd was a medieval European weapon, so existed in the days before globalisation. This means that the same name is unlikely to be appropriate for a Thai weapon used by warriors on elephants, which were not indigenous to Europe and almost unknown there. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, as there is an issue whether this can be merged/redirected to halberd how about a merge/redirect to a section in War elephant that can also discuss other elephant mounted weapons? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the name exists but the translation is confusing and certainly muddied with the info from User:Phil Bridger. Even "(ขอ)" doesn't translate to anything of sense. To merge anywhere without transplanting issues the dubious references would have to be used so I am not sure what that would accomplish. Otr500 (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you say, "Even ขอ doesn't translate to anything of sense." ขอ literally means "hook", i.e. bullhook. There are two versions of the weapon. the plain ngao, which looks more or less like the guandao, and kho ngao, which is a ngao with a combined elephant hook. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There don't appear to be grounds for deletion, and whether or not and where to merge can be discussed outside of AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Phil has shown it's clearly not a hoax, and the nominator hasn't queried the notability, so there's no case to answer. SITH (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2019 (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.