Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freestyle nunchaku

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 -- RoySmith (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle nunchaku

The article makes no assertion of notability for this sport, other than the fact that there's an internet forum devoted to it. A Google search for the phrase "Freestyle Nunchaku" brings up 4,230 hits, the top three of which are said internet forum and two Wikimirrors. From there, its nothing but a sea of blogs, forums, unrelated web sites, and commercial sites. Consequentially 01:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete `'mikkanarxi 07:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable newly invented sport. JIP | Talk 09:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep I can see us back here in a year or so making the opposite ruling. While I agree with the points made, I can see how as a sport it might gain popularity (perhaps make its way into rhythmic gymnastics, for ex.). BusterD 11:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's like saying we should keep a band that "will someday be famous." If the sport explodes onto the international scene and attracts third-party press and attention we can always remake. But in the here and now, there is nothing on the web that suggests this meets WP:N. Consequentially 05:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and "...still in its infancy...". Non-notable. EVula 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Chacy 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Doesn't seem important.--S U I T ⁴² 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first entry here that asserts to a scattered and possibly incoherent presence on the web is actually an argument for keeping this, not deleting. If the topic is presented so chaotically on the web, then this page would seem to serve the very purpose of an encyclopaedia, bringing the entire topic together in a coherent text that provides a cohesive overview. Malangthon 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My assumption is that it is presented chaotically because its of limited popularity, and relevant to an extremely specific demographic group. There are plenty of haphazard ideas and associations floating around on the internet -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Consequentially 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep per Malangthon and BusterD. I've taken a run through the article and done some cleanup and formatting. It still could use work, but is in a little better shape. JubalHarshaw 15:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly article needs cleanup, but the assertion "Competitions are now held where marks are awarded bases [sic] upon visual display rather than predefined kata." makes it notable (if verified). Give it a month and let's see where the article is by then. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 00:55, 29 October 2006 (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.