Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bok Fu Do

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 G12 as copyvio by PeaceNT , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 13:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bok Fu Do[edit]

Non-notable and unsourced, 559 google hits for "Bok Fu Do" -wikipedia drops to 134 if you navigate to later pages. Make big claims (name dropping)with not even a primary source or site to start from, full clean up would remove ~50% of the article. Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a badly written, pompously bragging promo for a non-notable martial art. Pundit|utter 16:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recommend the article creator pick up his coats. JuJube (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I believe the art is sufficiently well-known and sufficiently widespread to be notable, even though the article is a mess. JJL (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, blatant copyright infringement from this link. I already requested the speedy deletion. If this is not the best thing do in this specific case, please let me know so I won't do it again. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2008 (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.