Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oishi Shinkage-ryū

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. Given that even users suggesting the article seem to suggest that the article needs better sourcing, I believe that the consensus here is to delete that article as no significant additional sourcing has happened since the start of this AfD. Neither have any sources been presented to this AfD. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oishi Shinkage-ryū[edit]

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

This article about a martial art style has a lot of problems. The main ones are that there is a lack of significant coverage (fails WP:GNG) and there's nothing to show notability (fails WP:MANOTE). Jakejr (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs work, not deletion. I have added a reference from koyryu.com which originally appeared in Aikido Journal #104, 1995 which should deal with the notability concerns. jmcw (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll check the status of the article before the end of the AFD to determine my final vote.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some clean-up and removed the tags (the list of techniques should really go). The school has had more inpact on Japanese martial arts than just historical precedence if it truely was responsible for the introduction of the shinai.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed the list to the headers.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Peter, but this article needs some additional sourcing and research. Please take the time of this AFD to make it better and take Peter's advice in dropping the list of techniques.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but only if expansion and sourcing occurs. If not, however, I would have to suggest deletion. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage required to show notability nor do I think the subject's notability is shown in the text.Mdtemp (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of significant third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how the basic notability criteria are met here - unless any of the "Keep" voters can actually add some solid sourcing demonstrating notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:34, 25 June 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.