Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amateur Martial Association

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Martial Association

Association fails WP:ORG and WP:MANOTE. Article has been tagged for notability, sources, reading like an ad and use of wp:sps for nearly a year. Vague wording of the name makes it difficult to narrow the google searches down reliably. The article makes no assertion of notability and is essentially just a list of martial arts that memebers have studied. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a ad for the company and there has been little improvement in the past two years. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep largest in Britain is a clear claim of notability, and sponsors tournaments and teams drawn from large regions, certifies referees, names champions, etc.; 64K hits via gsearch that indicate that a great many dojos from a wide variety of arts and regions in the U.K. affiliate with it and consider it important (e.g. "NWCJ is affiliated to the Amateur Martial Association and all our policies regarding insurance, child protection etc are guided by those of the AMA.", [1]; "has been honoured by the Amateur Martial Association (AMA), one of the principal governing bodies for amateur martial arts in this country.", [2]); lots of mentions in WP:RS: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], plus a couple of books of abbrieviations [8]. This is a major, significant org. JJL (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, large doesn't mean notable, just as small doesn't mean not-notable. Mere mentions in the media don't confer notability to me either. One of your sources, for example only mentioned the orgs website as a possible source of things to do. An article about a child athlete and mentioning that he belongs to the Assoc. isn't significant coverage of the org, it's a passing mention. I appreciate the effort, but I'm sticking with my nom for now. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just because an organization is the "largest" of its kind doesn't make it notable.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They appear to run national squads[9] and host international open events [10]. There is press coverage from around the UK of people winning at AMA events.[11] and have 95,000 members. All this is pointing to a significant organisation in the UK martial arts scene.--Salix (talk): 20:11, 24 June 2009 (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.