Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contemporary fighting arts

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. Krimpet (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary fighting arts[edit]

Self promotion - I call WP:SPAM. Single contribution by creator. Peter Rehse 09:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I rewrote it as a sourced stub. It has been described in detail by The Washington Times and The Washington Post. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 10:24Z
Keep. Sourced. Ab e g92Hokies! 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Written up as local color does not make something notable (I could make the same claims about my own group). This appears to be one martial arts club.Peter Rehse 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This stub has reliable sources which therefore satisfies notability. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 00:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Just because it is sourced does not mean it is notable, this seem's to be a single club with little importance outside of its general area. Seems like an advertisement. Also is oddly edited by one or 2 users. DBZROCKS 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep I'd love to delete, but it is sourced. Can be trimmed.DGG 07:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. I could not see a way to strip the advertising/POV and retain a viable article, but someone else might be able to do it better. Eldereft 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another martial art that has not spread beyond the schools of its non-notable inventor. - Richard Cavell 15:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep: Unfortunately, the sources hit the fundamental verifiability bar: that there are multiple, reliable, published sources explicitly about the subject, and that these sources are not mere trivial mentions. I'm able to check the links out, and they are what the article claims they are. That this fellow may be a peddler of bullshido is irrelevant; we just have no grounds upon which to delete. Ravenswing 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Probably important only within one area, but it's been covered in multiple independent sources and so meets Wikipedia:Notability. If the fighting style and "Academy" are a one-man enterprise I would consider moving the article to Sammy Franco and rewriting in biographical style. EALacey 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete promo. sole refs from newspapers means just what I say: promo. Not a single expert cited. Mukadderat 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nor does WP:V require it. Plainly there are tens of thousands of articles on people who both pass the notability bar and are charlatans of one sort or another. Whether someone's allegations are true isn't the dividing line; it's whether the outside world has taken notice. Ravenswing 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If it is throughly rewritten, then it would be an OK article. — Wenli 23:09, 24 April 2007 (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.