Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen Do Kai (2nd nomination)

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. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Do Kai[edit]

Not sure why this survived the first AfD last year. This martial arts style fails the notability guidelines of WP:MANOTE. There are no independant sources for it. The article was created by a WP:SPA and there is a WP:COI issue with one of the contributors user: Bob Jones Martial Arts who is also a subject in the article. 2 of the 3 listed sources belong to that editor. The third is a link to a magazine homepage. It makes claims of widespread popularity, but Gnews shows 1 hit, an article about a student fighting off a criminal. Top 50 ghits show no reliable sources, mainly mentions in either school promotions or blogs. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonably well-known art; passing mention here [1]. JJL (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the article I referred to above. But that was the only one I could find. I haven't been able to find much in the way of WP:RS that aren;t affiliated with the school. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. Masss of unsourced promotional content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zen Do Kai is a notable Australian martial art organisation. I suspect it would be easy to meet the notability requirement if someone were to put a little work into the article. Janggeom (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you suugesting they qualify under WP:CORP and not as an art? Niteshift36 (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was expressing my view that, in real life (without any regard to Wikipedia requirements), Zen Do Kai is a notable Australian martial art organisation. It has been around for a long time, it is a large organisation, its founder is a well-known figure in the Australian martial arts scene, and I believe that it has a notable position in Australian martial arts history. I think of Zen Do Kai more as an organisation than as a style, but others might see it the other way around, equally validly; I was not forming an argument based on that distinction. My view is that it would be easy to establish notability (such as by referring to reliable, independent sources) if someone were prepared to put some work into the article. There is a lot of information in printed sources that does not appear anywhere on the Internet, and so would not be detected by electronic means (short of asking publishers to start providing on-line copies of their publications). I think that the subject is notable enough in real life that it is worth keeping the article, and for someone to improve it, rather than for it to be deleted. Thanks for your question; I trust that clarifies my viewpoint. Janggeom (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't verify what we don't have and we all know (and sometime hate) the premise that Wikipedia isn't about truth, but about verifiability. Gnews came up with one mention in passing. Of the first 50 ghits, nothing was a WP:RS. Have you compared the art to the notability standards in WP:MANOTE for newer arts? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have looked at the notability criteria, and have nothing new to add to what I wrote above. I am not clear what you are referring to when you write "newer arts." Regarding electronic sources: using the Google news archive search linked from the Wikipedia search engine test page, I see many independent references to Zen Do Kai (link). Janggeom (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember, this article is about the ART/STYLE, not students. A lot of those sources are pay ones. Others mention people are students, but it's not coverage of the art, which is the topic of this article, not the students. Another one is about some of their involvement in some criminal proceedings. When I am referring to WP:MANOTE I am talking abou this: #1: Subject of an independent article/documentary;- Sole or majority subject in the media, either a news article or a TV program. I'm not seeing that. I see mentions of the art in articles about the students, but not articles about the art itself. Maybe you have one I missed. #2: A Long externally verifiable history (i.e. secondary sources, not the club's website that says it has existed since 10,000BC...) Since it is 35 years old, we don't have that. Even then, we don't have any external sources that show much in the way of history period. #3: Multiple notable practitioners. Coming up short there. #4: A Large number of students; - Try to be objective. Remember that there are over 6 billion people in the world. I guess we could debate this one, but I don't think that 500-1000 is a huge number by any means. Do we have external evidence of that many?

5: Competitive successes in large inter-style tournaments;- For example UFC 1. I see mentions of some tournaments, but they appear to be against others of the same style, not inter-syle. Do you have evidence otherwise? In short, I believe we fail all 5 of the criteria for inclusion as a seperate art. I'd be happy to discuss any one of those criteria if you have something showing they do meet a majority of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about the Google news archive search results was simply an addendum to your statement that Google news returned only one result. I was surprised at that finding, so I looked around Wikipedia and came across the Google news archive search. I decided to share my finding because it might be of interest. In any case, WP:MANOTE is clear that: "Google and other search engines are a useful tool for finding sources ... but is not proof of whether or not something is notable" (original emphasis). Moving on, the general challenge you issue ('show me something that will establish notability') is a rhetorical one. If any contributor did have ready access to such information—and had the desire to share it—you would not have nominated the article for deletion in the first place, or else would have been compelled to withdraw the nomination. Information about Zen Do Kai is not an area of expertise for me, otherwise I would simply add to the article, but I know enough about the Australian martial arts scene that I have felt justified in contributing my opinion above. I appreciate your general point and I hope that, likewise, you will appreciate mine. Janggeom (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Australian Google returns slightly different results [2]. Sports Illustrated (aka CNN) has many articles/videos [3]. jmcw (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you WATCH the videos? They are straight links to youtube. And I don't mean CNN coverage being put on youtube.... I mean homemade videos. And which of those articles in the first search you cite are you going to call a WP:RS? I'm serious. Convince me and I'll withdraw this. But youtube videos and blogs don't cut it. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2009 (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.