Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juji Gatame

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. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juji Gatame[edit]

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Armlock#Juji-gatame as with Juji gatame JJL (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seperate articles for each move from an art are uncalled for. The individual move doesn't seem notable on its own. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Create page called List of Judo throws, add all this info to that and redirect this term. Lugnuts (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you look at the article in question you'll see it isn't a Judo throw. It's an armlock, which is why I suggested a redirect to Armlock. JJL (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This technique has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, as shown by a Google Book search, and satisfies notability. See [1], which says it is one of jujitsu's "most popular arm locks." It is a hold which will break the victim's elbow if he does not give up the match. See also [2], [3] , [4] , [5] , [6], [7], [8] , [9], [10]. If a particular technique in a sport has this many books with this much cverage of it, it is notable enough for an article. This does not mean that all techniques in the sport are notable. Some of the "delete" comments on some of the judo techniques AFDs sound like "IDONTLIKEIT." Edison (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My vote isn't about not liking it. I don't see where the individual technique listed here should have it's own article. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment concur that this is a major technique, and a Keep is certainly reasonable. Right now Juji gatame (note capitalization) redirects to Armlock#Juji-gatame which covers it reasonably well. There should be some consistency when all is said and done. JJL (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Tomoe nage, Seoi nage and Hane goshi, other important martial art techniques with their own articles. Many more refs could be added to those and some others. This one is like them, and not like most of the others in this set of AFDs which are only sourced to one book on Danzan Ryu. We should not generalize about nonnotability of moves or techniques in a sport, since it is easy to show notability of many specific moves or techniques. Edison (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Juji gatame article currently redirects to a superior version to the Juji Gatame article that is under discussion here, and the capitalization is more appropriate on the redirected article than this one. So, I think it's best to either redirect this article to the Armlock page, or to the Juji gatame article and add the material from Armlock#Juji-gatame there and improve it. JJL (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2009 (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.