Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masaji Taira

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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masaji Taira[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustain article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. After removing links to his students businesses/web pages and a quote from a blog the remaining sources are to the landing page of a magazine and to, per its URL, a blog. I could find nothing other than a couple of passing mentions when I searched. Jbh ^Talk 18:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the French source and AGF that the National Geographic source is as claimed since I do not understand Spanish. The YouTube link may be a WP:COPYVIO since I can not see if it is from the official site. if not the link needs to be removed and the program simply cited. Time stamps should be added for claims it is being used to support as well. New sources provided by Xaspersted here.
The article should be trimmed of COI/Promo material and re-written based on what is available in these independent RS. Jbh ^Talk 05:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. The only non-trivial article is the interview in Blitz magazine which was co-authored by his student/colleague Bryson Keenan. I don't believe that meets the definition of independent. Papaursa (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait there are a few European articles, not authored by students, that may be sufficient. I've reached out to his European representatives for links. --Xasperated (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC) — Xasperated (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep (weak) by clicking on Books, his name is mentioned in a number of books of various authors. Unless nearly all of those books are self-published, I think he is probably notable. The WP:RS in the article, however, is severely lacking. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley:, @Papaursa:, @Johnpacklambert: Care to reconsider based on what I just wrote? --David Tornheim (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These look like passing mentions to me. He may be well known within his niche but the coverage is just not there. Jbh ^Talk 14:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that these appear to be passing mentions and insufficient to show GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commentt while the book references are encoraging they seem to tend towatds short references that seem to only indicate that the subject is a martial arts teacher. I think they still fall short of what we would want for coverage that rises to the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral On further reflection I think especiially the second book source has some potential. However I really can' t decide so I will leave the issue for now. I am editing on my phone and maybe I could get a better sense if I did so on my computer. I am not leaning anyway at present. Mainly I wrote this to say striking delete is not saying I support keep but that I have no view either way at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the two books by Michael Clarke are well known and well presented. They are not self published - even to some being translated into spanish. Clarke is not a Taira student. Clarke makes many references to Taira in his blog http://shinseidokandojo.blogspot.com. At one point there were other references in the article to discussions in traditional karate forums - they were removed/edited by someone, but support being well known outside of his group. Forum posts are unfortunately ephemeral. There are also many mentions of Taira's teaching in the online videos and sold DVDs of Paul Enfield. Unfortunately, while Paul is no longer a student of Taira he once was. From my somewhat biased POV, the Okinawan Goju Ryu community is fairly small, the one huge figure being Morio Higaonna, but within the community on Okinawa Taira is notable and known. As will the reference to the French martial arts magazine, and the fact that he's running seminars in Europe in UK, France, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland, Hungary that shows some level of demand. Switzerland and Hungary are both new this year, and one is for a non Goju organisation, showing spread outside of his group. Xasperated (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment changed !vote to keep, since a withdraw is not possible with standing delete !votes, based on the new sources provided [1]. Jbh ^Talk 05:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am changing my vote to neutral. I'm not convinced there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The French article is the only source I'm willing to count, but I must admit I'm not willing to watch 45 minutes of video in Spanish to see if that coverage is significant. I'm still leaning towards delete, but not strongly enough to fight about. Papaursa (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2017 (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.