Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dai Nippon Butoku Kai

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The result was Withdrawn per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Nippon Butoku Kai[edit]

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

No third party sources found. Found only tangential mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic has substantial notability, both for the global history of martial arts and the modern history of Japan. (DNBK had pervasive influence. DNBK is the organisation that made the "black belt" system standard across martial arts. DNBK played a major role in the total militarisation of Japanese society, for example by incorporating martial training in Japan's school curriculum. It's membership was so all-encompassing that the allied powers were unable to completely declare it illegal for lack of unaffiliated personel to help them administer the country. It is of significance in the broader study of WW2. It was also the ancestor to today's IMAF.) Like much associated with Japan's past ultra-nationalism the DNBK has tended to slip away from common discussion in Japan, but there's still independent sources out there such as Prof. Peter Goldsbury's articles describing the DNBK and its consequence to the development of Aikido. I can say the article is certainly likely to be improved in the future. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improved by whom? When? You've had 5 years so far and ain't nothing happened. Don't make it somebody else's problem; do it yourself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. WP:SEP reads:

Every user participating in such a discussion, especially the nominator, the closing admin and the one(s) providing sources, should feel responsible to fix the article once the discussion has closed with a keep-result. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what would I fix it with? I already told you I did a source sweep and found nothing non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 12:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced by your prior nominatons, you really need to improve how you look for sources. You would have actually found some in this case, if you had done a books search, for instance. Even if you couldn't improve the article itself (e.g. you didn't have enough time to read the material), there is a clear WP:POTENTIAL for the article, so there was no need to nominate this article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found 563 books on Google about this organization, plus a very long and established history when browsing and reading a bit through it all. Looks very notable to me but the article can use some work of course. --DeVerm (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep There are even more in Japanese. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have begun some improvements to the article by adding one book source on martial arts that devotes an entire chapter to the subject. I ask the nominator to withdraw their nomination, as WP:GNG seems to have been meet, unless there are other objections. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found the book chapter and a Black Belt article by McCarthy very easily using Google, but have not had time to read through them. I was also intending to investigate McCarthy's relationship with the DNBK, as his website states that he holds qualifications from that organisation. It is not clear to me yet whether the relationship might warrant considering McCarthy a primary source (or similar), or if the relationship is at a similar level to someone writing about a university who also incidentally happens to hold a degree from that university. In any case, these sources clearly constitute more than just passing mentions about the subject. Thanks for your addition to the article. Janggeom (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My research shows quite a bit of material on this, including over 100 hits in Google books. That, plus the longevity of the organization, warrant that it be included in the encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 24 July 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.