Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shotokan of England Karate Union

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. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 01:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shotokan of England Karate Union[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as lacking independent sources since July 2008. There's also no indication of why the organization is notable. There are only 27 member clubs and no other claims of notability. I didn't find any independent sources supporting notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am satisfied with the notability of 27 clubs and their presence via google search. jmcw (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No question it exists or that it has member clubs. Is that alone sufficient to make it notable? I don't think so, but I'll go with consensus. I think independent sources, from outside the organization, are required to show notability and I didn't see those. Perhaps some UK magazines or newspapers can supply these references. Papaursa (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The organization is quite active [1] - I don't know how to search UK newspapers to find sources. jmcw (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found some more 3rd party sources, including a newspaper article, which indicate the success of this organisation in international level competition. It is among the more important Shotokan federations in Britain. Newspaper and magazine sources are surprisingly hard to find because karate gets minimal press coverage and there are so many different styles.--Charles (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't think there's enough sourcing to really show notability, but it's also not fluff. I think it's interesting that the article wasn't edited for over 4 months and, once it was up for AfD, there were 7 edits within 3 hours. Astudent0 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the good things that can happen when an article is put up for AfD--people actually try to fix it. The article has been improved by these latest edits and references.Papaursa (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does this mean that we will lose our choice of which articles we work on by having many articles dragged through AFD? jmcw (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any kind of edit, even vandalism brings an article to editors attention because it appears on watchlists, which leads them to notice things that need doing. The threat of deletion does give added urgency though.--Charles (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I put the article up for PROD months ago because I didn't think it showed notability and it had no independent sources. It hadn't really changed, so someone putting it up for AfD wasn't unreasonable. The fact that it had been tagged for 2 1/2 years means that no one really was making an effort to fix the article.Astudent0 (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That no one is working on it is not grounds for deletion. jmcw (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's true, but if you don't see notability or sources, I do think that's grounds for deletion. If not then, when? Astudent0 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        After one has made the effort to look for sources onesself. That means more than just reading the article. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well said sir.--Charles (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2010 (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.