Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Togakure-ryū

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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Togakure-ryū

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

This article has only one source and it's not independent. The martial art claims to go back 850 years, but the only evidence is a claim by the art's founder/reviver since the 1960s that he has a manuscript that is that ancient that describes the martial art. Except for the longevity claim, there is nothing else that shows this is a notable martial art and there are no independent sources that show this art has an 800 year history.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve refs and work towards NPOV: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Togakure-ryū&hl=en&prmd=ivns&biw=1280&bih=664&um=1&tbo=u&tbm=bks shows that the term has been referenced in many books and magazines. Seems to be notable enough. --Slashme (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous references on Google Scholar that indicate notability. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Togakure-ryu&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that these are reliable, third-party references - they are too close to the subject field. jmcw (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be enough sources to indicate notability. However, entire sections of the article (like the ones on the manuscript and techniqes) have no sources and should either be sourced or deleted. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 25 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.