Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concept of mixing the inefficient martial arts methods

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. Materialscientist (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concept of mixing the inefficient martial arts methods

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

No assertion or evidence of notability per WP:GNG; no significant coverage of the term or its found online in WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator without comment. Gurt Posh (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated this both for speedy deletion and subsequently prod. The article has no assertion of notability, nor does it provide any evidence that this even exists, let alone is notable. The author of this article also created one on Kuzgov Tamerlan Abuevich (the supposed founder of this martial art) which was speedily deleted, rightly in my opinion. Palltrast (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like something someone just made up one day. The article gives no indication of notability and has no reliable sources. Jakejr (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ALERT: User MarkFleydman1954 must have moved the article to "keep" this article, now that this is titled Concepts of mixing the inefficient and medium martial arts methods. I have changed the title to reflect that, so keep that in mind. Also, I will have moved this page to another name as soon as possible, unless there are immediate oppositions. --Gh87 (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now reverted the move. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I read this three times in an attempt to understand the content. Perhaps it has been translated wrong but in its current form it makes no sense at all. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content is incoherent. No evidence of notability. Peacock (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I prefer to keep it here. There is no evidence from reliable sources but it does not mean it does not exsist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rum456 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - unreferenced, and likely unreferencable, as well as being incomprehensible. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, and the Google Translate version of the linked Russian-language article makes more sense than this stub, which (assuming good faith) is probably an inaccurate translation. Janggeom (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2011 (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.