Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katana Fighting Series (kickboxing)

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katana Fighting Series (kickboxing)[edit]

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

Scottish kickboxing organization whose only coverage falls under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER--either fight results or listings of upcoming fights. Jakejr (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the biggest promotion in Scotland, what information do you need to keep the page open? TheDeadRat

(talk) 23:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show that this promotion has received significant independent coverage. Routine sports reporting such as fight results and lists of upcoming fights do not show notability. For example, do you have some independent sources to support your statement that this is the biggest promotion in Scotland? That alone wouldn't show notability, but it would be a start towards meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hhhmmm, the big problem we have here is that the majority of the British Press ignore fighting sports because the BBC and other broadcasters don't screen such events. The reasoning use to be that because thai kickboxing wasn't an olympic sport it was deemed unworthy of any coverage. This is where its difficult to obtain written material about the events. The promotion has a show on in November, if we went all out to get some press coverage would this first of all satisfy the criteria and secondly let the article stay open till then? TheDeadRat (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't press coverage of the event, it's significant independent coverage of the organization. You can look at WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ROUTINE to get an idea of what kind of coverage will not help show notability and WP:GNG to see what would help. Papaursa (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delay Deletion Article clearly just needs time for additional information. Mdtemp I would question the hurry for the deletion Evening Times (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2013 (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!*} 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found no significant independent coverage of this organization. All I found was routine sports coverage of its events. The article has been unchanged for two weeks, so user Evening Times' request for additional time hasn't helped. If this article is deleted, I have no objection to its recreation once notability is establish. Papaursa (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete How do we do that thing where we apply for experienced wikipedia users to update the article? TheDeadRat (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2013 (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.