Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihon Koden Shindo Ryu

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 17:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihon Koden Shindo Ryu[edit]

Nihon Koden Shindo Ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable karate style RogueNinjatalk 05:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article by a new author has not been through a proper process of criticism. It has enough claims to establish notability: the claims need references. Consider Wikipedia:BITE. jmcw (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are no issues here with WP:BITE, and this is specifically designed to get a proper process of criticism.  Asenine  11:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The article existed for 1 hour and 10 minutes before it was proposed for deletion. The are no discussion page comments or requests for citations. The author has been at wiki for 1 month. What is WP:BITE? jmcw (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy it, then? JJL (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the relevent maintenance tags, while I would probably not have nominated it on a 1st pass it needs something to assert notability, as with 331 g-hits for Nihon Koden Shindo Ryu -wikipedia it's not looking good. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I admit that it is discouraging that there are not even primary sources linking the founder with the style [1]. jmcw (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment On the fence so far but it's not looking good, reviewed the ref section3 were valid (one was an Amazon link now gives the ISBN) and the 2 reaming are in Spanish or Portuguese, not promising... --Nate1481(t/c) 13:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn new art. JJL (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tag talks about the tone having to be changed, how is the tone wrong and how does it have to be? Concerning all of the explanations about the katas, they are common to many Japanese styles, like shotokan for example. Besides I have seen some Karate articles and not all of them have a lot of references, just a few and they aren't put in the list of articles for deletion. I understand I have to put some references, some of them are there, I'll work on others. Please tell me anything that I would have to change to not have it deleted. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retroville7 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are really two issues here. First, in order to not be deleted the article should be about something that is, in Wikipedia's terms, notable. Is this art notable, and if so can that be demonstrated? After that, the tone is a concern. The article reads as though it as written by a proponent of the system--very favorable and not well-documented. For example, a statement like "At this moment when the body hardens and impacts the opponent, it vibrates (like when an arrow hits its target)" should be documented by an in-text reference that is a reliable source (preferably not written by a proponent but by a disinterested observer), and should probably be rephrased as something like "Practitioners believe that...". JJL (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh! now I get what the tone thing is, you're right. I'll see what I can do then to fix it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retroville7 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • May I suggest that you write an article on the founder Hiroyuki Hamada? He has written a book : it might be easier to establish notability. jmcw (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postpone decision an editor is working on improving the article so it needs some time for them to bring it up then reconsideration --Nate1481(t/c) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --jonny-mt 04:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per WP:BITE, but article has too many self published sources for references, Annette46 (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait; give it a chance This article was tagged for deletion an hour after it was created. Let's give it a chance. For future reference, "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." (See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion) The person who tagged this article for deletion did not make any suggestions on how to improve it. This article does not meet deletion policy. --Abusing (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is under construction. I don't know why I said it doesn't meet deletion policy. The point is, the author should have put the 'under construction' template on the page while building the article. The article should have been given at least a few days to be built and referenced. An editor is working on it. This article is being revamped in order to stay online. Let's give it one more week to attempt to fix it's problems and improve. --Abusing (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- the article dose not currently meet WP:N so deletion in its current form does meet policy, however an editor has said he will try to improve it so should be given some time do so and to see if the article can demonstrate notability before a derision is made. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. This is not a content dispute in any way, and i'm not sure where that came from.
  • ANY dispute about a page should be addressed on the talk page before being tagged for deletion.--Abusing (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[2][reply]
That still dosen't make it a content dispute. While most things should be initially be addressed on the talk page, I'm not sure I agree that all should, blatant advertising & the like, as well as topics that have no possibility of attaining notability should clearly not. In this case while those are not relvent the issues needed a better airing than just a talk page people might not chance upon, my response would have been to tag it and raise it with the MA project but a deletion discussion was not inappropriate esspecially as the nominator notified the relevent wikiproject, proding or speedy deletion whould have been wrong, this is normal. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming this article has "no possibility of attaining notability". Let whoever is working on this article have a chance to keep it online. If the editor working on this can't establish notablility, then I'm all for Delete. There is no reason to delete the article before that is confirmed. --Abusing (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that's what I had been saying all along? The article Right NOW dose not show notability and the nominator did not believe it would be able to, so initiated a discussion to see if other agreed that it was unlikely to impossible, which is why we are here... As an editor said he was working on it, various comments have been to postpone the decision until there is more information. However in the week since starting this debate very little secondary sourcing has been added to demonstrate notability so it is still not looking good though far from decisive as yet. --Nate1481 07:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to shortage of third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok, I fix the first issue (lacks of references) with more references, but mainly from the english main site. One thing I really dressage is the problem of putting English information about the style from the main site (by the way, the ONLY site in english). We aren't suggesting this type of karate or any thing similar, we only give the main information about the style. I don't see any problem here.

About the stances in Karate; first of all, in this style are some particularities in the way of execute those stances. So the article Karate stances results to be to general to be applied to all Karate's styles because in different styles, different stances are practiced and in different manners. For example, you can read this in our article "In the style, Kokutsu dachi, Zenkutsu dachi, and Naihanchi are narrower than in many other styles, and this is to have a faster displacement. For example, the displacement in Zenkutsu dachi isn't done in semi circles but straight forward. In Naihanchi, the practitioners execute the stance with the feet being as wide as the shoulders, then the knees must be exactly on top of the feet so that the stance can be strong and enable the use of the hips while blocking or punching." As you can see, this information, not general, particular for this style, is not given in the Karate stances article. So we think that explanation on the How To do the stances and Which stances are practiced is necessary. The same thing about Kata. The interpretation, translation and form of Kata depends of the style. For example, the Naihanchi kata is the source of Tekki Kata but there are different, the Bassai kata is different from the Bassai Dai Kata and different from the Bassai Kata in other styles. As you can see, once again, is necessary to put in the article Which are the Katas practiced in the syle, and which is the interpretation of those kata that practitioners from the style believe. This issue become more relevant is we note that there are Katas practiced in this style that are unique and of course, are no mentioned in the article of Karate kata, and those that are mentioned in name, are different in manner among styles. Regards. --MarcosAbel (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep for now. Has claims of notability, just needs better references. Tag it, explain problems on talk, give it time to improve.Yobmod (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources establish notability, just needs more and higher quality sources, better prose, etc, all reasons for cleanup, not deletion. It also is not good to delete an article in the middle of a "major revamping". Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is it has been tagged for nearly two weeks and there has been no addition of secondary sources to establish notability. There is no evidence the art is widely known or taught and a dozen articles on martial arts styles are created monthly by well meaning students, but there is nothing to show that this is more than a handful of schools founded by on man, and there has been two weeks of asking for something. There is some MA related notability information here WP:MANOTE --Nate1481 14:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. There have been no significant changes since the template was added and none at all in the last 4 days, I have removed it. --Nate1481 14:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is the claim of notability that is made in the article for the style (as opposed to for Felton Messina, who has his own page)? JJL (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - after a long and patient wait, still no solid evidence of notability provided. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 26 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nihon_Koden_Shindo_Ryu&oldid=1138163596"