Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sifu Tan Siew Cheng

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sifu Tan Siew Cheng[edit]

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

The subject's notability has not been reliably demonstrated. The only significant claim to notability is that the subject created Singapore's national martial art or Singapore's indigenous martial art, but the only source given is a reference to the subject's organisation, with a street address in Singapore. (In any case, these are both dubious claims, given Singapore's history; i.e., a Kung Fu style founded in 1966 is very unlikely to be the national/indigenous martial art of a country that has had prolonged exposure to a range of non-Chinese martial arts before then, quite apart from the lack of any official source for this claim so far.) All of the on-line sources are dead links, and a good faith search for references has thus far failed to find any reliable sources to demonstrate the subject's notability. Janggeom (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Janggeom's comments. My own search failed to turn up anything that indicates notability or coverage by independent and reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is misnamed. "Sifu" is a title, and means "Master", similar to the Japanese term "Sensei", so if this article is kept, it should be renamed to Tan Siew Cheng. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing to support this individual's claim of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2011 (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.