Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han Moo Do (2nd nomination)

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. (X! · talk) · @185 · 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Han Moo Do[edit]

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

This was a no consensus last year. Fails WP:MANOTE. There is a similar sounding martial art style Han Mu Do, but this one was founded in Finland. They are not the same. Article has one source, a Finnish paper claiming the style is getting more popular. Aside from the single article, the 2 who supported keeping it last time showed sources that verify it exists, but none was significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. – Janggeom (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The article neither claims nor sources notability and therefore fails WP:N. However good faith Google searches do turn up a handful of hits; I don't have the necessary expertise in martial arts to determine their reliability or significance. Ultimately however the onus is on editors creating articles to establish their notability and appropriately source the article content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Finnish article looks a bit more extensive and has sources. They could perhaps be added to the article. JIP | Talk 08:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources on the Finnish site do not appear to be independent, but they do talk about chapters being opened in other countries. Papaursa (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The first link I googled tells me, that the main annual Finnish competition has on average about 400-500 HMD participants all around Finland. As everyone can understand, the number of people who train is much higher. And all that in a small nation of 5 million people. HMD is one of the most important martial arts in Finland. It also has divisions at least in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. I really hate this kind of "I haven't heard about it, therefore it doesn't exists" type of BS. I agree that there isn't many English-language web-resources, but the online translators were invented long ago... --mixer (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope you aren't trying to say that I based this one "I haven't heard about this before" because only someone who hasn't paid attention would say that. You looked at the first link, I found that too....a link for a forum about the art (hardly a reliable third party source) and found a link to a school in a neighboring country. While doing your googling, did you find any reliable third party sources that provided significant coverage showing their notability (and not just claims about numbers)? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not appear to be notable. JBsupreme (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um alot of editors don't seem to understand that an article has to have reliable sourcesWP:SOURCES. Plus the article fails because the sources are self published. WP:SELFPUBLISH

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am voting delete because there is a lack of reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources is a concern in an article but it's not a reason of itself to delete the article, especially where it's suspected that sources exist but may not be easily accessed. However where the lack of sources means that the article can't demonstrate notability through significant coverage in reliable independent sources that IS a reason to delete. - 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

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.