Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bak Fu Pai

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. Mr.Z-man 03:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bak Fu Pai[edit]

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

Non-notable martial art with no indication of notability and no significant independent coverage. All sources are primary. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the coverage required to meet WP:GNG or that it meets WP:MANOTE. In fact it appears the article has no independent sources at all. Papaursa (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd like to see evidence of a search having been conducted in Chinese sources for 白虎派 before even considering a deletion. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originated this article. It's not a point of pride; I just wanted to say I started the page in hopes that it would be added to. I didn't search Chinese sources because I am functionally illiterate in Chinese. I would welcome anyone able to research Chinese to do so. Caedmon85 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure I can prove it but I did do a search and found nothing. Could be several reasons for that including my own incompetence but searching the internet using a three character combination is not easy. Reading the references and a bit of digging make me question the lineage claims, it is hard for me to judge how widespread the art is (found regionally in the US?) or its notability. Are there any non-primary US references. Perhaps Caedmon85 could expand on that.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody has shown this martial art has any significant coverage or meets anything in WP:MANOTE. Requiring editors to search in a language they don't speak is not a Wikipedia requirement. Jakejr (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If one can't establish notability and show significant coverage, then there's no reason to keep it. Telling other users to do it themselves is a weak argument for keeping the article. --Cold Season (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no independent coverage in the article there's no way it meets WP:GNG. My own search didn't find any significant independent coverage.Astudent0 (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2014 (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.