Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsuriai-Ryu Goshin Jitsu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Sr13 09:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tsuriai-Ryu Goshin Jitsu[edit]
- Tsuriai-Ryu Goshin Jitsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- Cuong Nhu Vo Dao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - added by Shalom Hello
Non-notable based on ghits. There is a lot more wrong with this article too. The Reference given appears to be a school with serious notability problems of its own (single school formed last year and yes I will submit it to afd debate after I see the response to this one). It is categorized as a traditional Japanese art with no eveidence that it is anything but a made up art and practiced any more widely than the single location. No background on the founder. I suspect it was a buddy of the other schools founder that wanted something Japanesie soundingPeter Rehse 02:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It appears that Professorius (talk · contribs) wrote this article with a conflict of interest, but the subject is not notable and very difficult to source. I have added to this nomination the other article by Professorius. Shalom Hello 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverified and non-notable McDojo. VanTucky (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete both as NN, there are less than polite terms for two self appointed 'grandmasters' referencing each other for legitimacy. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:38, 27 July 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.