Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheongye Kwan

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. JForget 00:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheongye Kwan

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

Unnotable. Judging by minimal Google hits appears to be a very localised Lancashire martial art (rather like this one ?) Wayne Riddock (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I'd have nommed the article myself. 217 Google hits isn't just enough. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person who originally prodded the article. When I did a search on Google for sources, I got just over 300 hits, the first four of which were, respectively, the dojo's website, the Wikipedia article, Facebook, and Twitter. Not very convincing for an organization claimed to be notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on behalf of article's creator. The creator has listed multiple magazine and newspaper articles, so the argument "does not have enough google hits" should not be relevant. See the references section. I, personally am neutral. Tim1357 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the references listed, one is a "Los Angeles Interview" with no provenance, posted on the group's own website, rather than a neutral, third party source; the others don't seem to support the notability of the *group* (as opposed to the notability of the *founder*). Either way, given the account name of the author (Ckduk) and the fact that this account has only ever been used to create and edit this page (see contribs), at the very least there is grounds for serious WP:COI concern. tlesher (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Non-commercial organizations Notability

“Organizations are notable if they meet both of the following standards”

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale…

THE CHEONGYE KWAN IS REGIONAL AND NATIONAL, as noted in our media referebces from all across the UK. AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL IN ITS ASSOCIATIONS. [Los Angeles Interview]

Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)

MASTER GRADES AND GRANDMASTER GRADES HAVE COMMENTED OR INTERVIEWED US again in references AND SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGE THE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHEONGYE FROM FROM BOTH IN THE UK AND IN THE USA – NEW YORK AND LA.

Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area.

THE CHEONGYE KWAN IS NOT ONLY REGIONAL (local) BUT INTERNATIONAL AND CAN BE SUPPLIED WITH WRITTEN REFERENCES FROM HOLLWOOD ACTORS (who are Grandmasters) WHO HELP SUPPORT THE ASSOCIATION.

The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered.

MASTER BARRY COOK IS A FORMER MEMBER OF THE GREAT BRITAIN NATIONAL TAEKWONDO TEAM AND BECAME A NATIONAL TEAM COACH AFTER REIRING (again as quoted from a newspaper article in references)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 07:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, poorly referenced, promotional. andy (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I just read the article, and to be quite honest, feel that it does satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines. it is reliably sourced (as shown with the Preston Citizen, Bristol Evening Post, Taekwondo & Korean Martial Arts Magazine, Cambridge University BTA Interviews, The Lancashire Evening Post and Rochdale Observer coverage). Since I believe the notability of the article is satisifed, the issues of conflict of interest, lack of google hits (which are a rather blunt tool for use in assessing notability) and self-promotion are rather weak arguments for deletion. They can be fixed. I would also like to add, to whoever closes this discussion, that two of the arguments for deletion were posted when the article had 2 sources stating notability. It now has 11 independent sources. And to refute the argument posed by Wayne, it is determined by the Phillip Rhee source that the martial arts is not localised. Thank you. —Dark 10:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - this sport apparently began in 2007. Most of the references date back to around 2004. I can't access them online but from the headlines they seem to be about the sport's founder rather than the sport itself (which didn't exist at the time). So they're completely irrelevant. andy (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With regrets (because I have just spent an hour improving the article at the author's request). The fatal stumbling block remains: the sources and evidence of notability just aren't there at all. The sources such as they are, are local/regional/university papers and self published websites, and even so, mostly about Barry Cook (briefly) as a 2004-05 Taekwando team member:
1. 3 local newspaper writeups about Barry Cook as a Taekwando person (from before Cheongye Kwan existed), dating to Oct - Dec 2004
2. a 4th and 5th write-up from Feb + June 2005 likely about Barry Cook and Taekwando in a TK magazine (also both from a time Cheongye Kwan didn't exist)
3. Barry Cook's information page on the local town website (likely self published) [1]
4. a short writeup of a "local information" kind, on the award of the first 4 black belts by the school, in its local paper [2]
5. a 2008 interview apparently in a University magazine that covers Barry Cook visiting some Taekwando masters, but isn't coverage of the topic [3].
I've spent 2 hours checking and working on it, and it's now written in an appropriate style and level of detail, but the fundamental problem is still unchanged - there's just no actual coverage of the topic by credible reliable independent sources, as it stands. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ever since the article has been AFDed, the article creator and another creator has done quite a large measure of improving the article and it looks good now. I don't see anymore reasons to delete it. True, it should be good if there is more references but given more time, I think that that wouldn't be a problem anymore. Furthermore, it does not sound promotional anymore. Bejinhan Talk 14:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I was thinking about changing my !vote, I have to say, with much regret that after assessing the article again, I must agree with FT2's rationale. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the article should be kept for a few more months. Wikipedia is not running out of space. :) Bejinhan Talk 05:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regarding Bejinhan's comments, I acknowledge that the article is much improved from it's original condition, however the critical matter of references which establish notability has not been resolved, as described by FT2.

Given time? How much? Through interaction in the Wikipedia Help Channel, ckduk has made it clear to me the article already references all coverage there has been at this point. This isn't a matter of waiting for sources to be found and added, but of waiting for sources to be written, which we can't do.

I appreciate ckduk has put a lot of work into this, and advised that if in the future the subject has received more significant coverage, the article can be resurrected, and hope that this proves to be the case. "Wikipedia is not running out of space." is not a valid reason for keeping everything. AJ Cham 12:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a case for deletion + userfication andy (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that userspace isn't for that. It's for pages being worked on:

"It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage... you should avoid substantial content [...] on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website... unrelated content include[s]... advertising or promotion of a business, organization, or group unrelated to Wikipedia... In general, if you have material that... is... inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site... this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of... previously deleted content... Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." (Wikipedia:User page)

The issue here is that the page lacks credible reliable sources: - genuine significant coverage of the topic, evidence that the world is genuinely taking note, etc. It isn't a case of needing further research and improvement. It needs sufficient, appropriate, substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, that's not merely due to self-promotion activity. The topic hasn't achieved that. Userspace isn't a means to give clearly untenable content relating to their author's personal interests/activities, a last toehold on Wikipedia, nor a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTAL) to guess they could perhaps be notable in future. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Agreed. andy (talk) 16:26, 3 November 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.