Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasuhiro Konishi
- 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 for Yasuhiro Konishi with leave quickly (but not speedy) renominate if independent sources aren't found and no consensus for Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yasuhiro Konishi[edit]
- Yasuhiro Konishi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All references on the article are self-referential to the subject's claimed martial art style, and in most cases are identical to each other in URL and content. I also feel that Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should also be included in this AFD for similar reasons. If the actions of Pbelleisle (talk · contribs) continue, there may be a third related article that I believe should also be included, located at either Shindo Jinen Ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or Shindō jinen-ryū (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There is no third party media relating to these subjects that are used as references, so it's a pretty clear cut case that this is again some karateka who believes that the school he belongs to requires mention on Wikipedia. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 21,400 Google hits for "Yasuhiro Konishi karate", including videos, images, websites and articles. 78,600 Google results for "Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai". Additionally, as the author, I've added further third-party sourcing to both the Yasuhiro Konishi and Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai articles, but also thought it might be helpful to summarize a few items. First, here are some notes on the sources used and references cited in the article:
Extended content
|
---|
Second, here are some general notes on the reasons I believe the Yasuhiro Konishi and Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai articles should be kept:
|
- Hope this helps keep the Konishi article in place, as well as that for Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai. In regard to the latter, I believe it would make sense to leave the Shindo Jinen Ryu page as a simple redirect, but change that redirect to point to the Japan Karate-Do Ryobu-Kai page, which I have also strengthened considerably.
- Finally, I am certainly sensitive to the number of martials arts whose practitioners have an over-inflated sense of importance about what they do. These entries, however, are genuinely different. Major elements of karate literally would not look as they do today - either organizationally or content-wise - without the influence of Yasuhiro Konishi, and both JKR and Shindo Jinen Ryu remain vital and important pieces of the current martial arts scene around the world. Thank you for your consideration. Pbelleisle (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article seems to be well sourced and pass notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject appears notable and article appears sourced. Papaursa (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a kid his name for me and a few friends was a karate chop. You went 'whack' and said Konishi. I can't remember why, didn't seem strange at the time...Szzuk (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - The proposers rationale seems well planted in policy and the Keep rationalles don't seems to really erxplain whjy they think this is independently notable or comments that it "appears sourced" - make no investigation of independent notability as required at wiki. I was going to close this as no consensus to delete - although four users have commented Keep I am still more in support of the nominators rationale - also thousands of Google search returns is imo meaningless unless you actually present some of them that are independent and reliable as per wiki guidelines. The last keep comment from Ssuk is uncountable in policy. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 30 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.