Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amateur Martial Association (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. Both those favorite delete and those favoring keep make policy based points. Being above a certain size does not make something notable, but being the largest of its kind often does. Apparently reliable sources are cited in this AfD, but none were added to the article. In the end it comes down to a judgment call on what constitutes "significant" coverage, and those discussing here simply do not agree on this. Nor does more discussion look likely to change this. DES (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Amateur Martial Association
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article needs deletion it has no reliable third person sources or notability. Fails criteria WP:NOTE, WP:SOURCE Dwanyewest (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. I nominated this before. Not a single bit of improvement has happened in the past 9 months. The arguments used for the 2 keep !votes last time were based on alleged size, not on notability demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:MANOTE and WP:ORG. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It seems to fail WP:N,WP:GNG. It might be large, but there is little independent coverage, it seems. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nine months with no secondary sources indicate a clear fail of WP:N. Hopefully, a less impressionable admin will close it this time around. Pcap ping  06:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per User_talk:Dwanyewest jmcw (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be confrontational, but this article was nominated 7 months ago. Your project wanted to keep it then. And in 7 months, there hasn't been a single thing added to it. Nothing. How does that add up to a speedy keep? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As per the nomination, lack of third party references is not a ground for deletion. Stubs can live here without the same quality references as a FA. jmcw (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It still comes back to the fact that notability hasn't been demonstrated through significant coverage by reliable, third party sources. So-called stubs exist on the premise that they'll be expanded with said sources to show why they belong here. After 3 and a half years, I think we've waited long enough. (And yes, I've read WP:NOTIMELIMIT, so spare me the reference to the essay) Niteshift36 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Complete and utter failure of general notability guidelines.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 09:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete reads like a brochure for the organization. No indication at all of how this is notable.  RadioFan (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because clicking on the "news" link provided in the header at the top of this article shows numerous sources about its events and their significance . The nominator should have done this check himself. Note from The Mirror that "the Amateur Martial Association, AMA, [...] is the largest martial arts association in the UK with over 3000 clubs" and from the South Wales Echo  that "David is the real thing - twice AMA (Amateur Martial Association) British Heavyweight Kung Fu champion, and a fully qualified, totally inspiring instructor." (i.e., being an AMA champion is the evidence adduced to show that he is the "real thing"). The Bolton News finds passing one of its tests a noteworthy experience . Google Books, also linked above--I just clicked on those links to learn this--is listed in many books on orgs. and acronyms, of course, but also is recommended as "an umbrella organization" for learning about the martial arts in a book . From the previous AfD there is, for example, an endorsement from the BBC News  of the AMA as a source for learning about the martial arts and finding a school. Quoted as an expert source on martial arts statistics in The Telegraph . JJL (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lnk #1 is strictly a google search. Link #2 goes to an article about a man who stabbed another man. That's not an article about the assoc. It's a mention. Link #3 confims they exist and have a championship. The local fair has a hotdog eating champion. That doesn't establish notability. The article mentions the assoc, not covers it. Link #4 says a guy is on one of their committee's. It is a mere mention. No coverage of the actual assoc at all. Link #5 tells us what the acronym means. It provides no coverage of it. Link #6 provides info on their website. Providing a bunch of mere mentions is not significant coverage. And making sarcastic edit summaries doesn't establish their notability either. Has it occured to you that people search for sources, but understand the difference between significant coverage and trivial mentions? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Link #2 identifies it as the largest U.K. m.a. org. This was an issue at the previous AfD. Link #3 not only confirms the existence of their championship but also addresses its significance. What you suggest has indeed occurred to me but I've rejected it based on the available evidence. To be clear, are you saying that you concur with the nominator that "This article needs deletion it has no reliable third person sources[...]" (emphasis added)? JJL (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the link. Largest doesn't mean notable. Did you ever read WP:BIGNUMBER? "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." You'll find the WP:BIGNUMBER in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. To be clear, I think it should be deleted because of lack of significant coverage by reliable sources and it failing WP:ORG. I thought that was pretty clear in my !vote above. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fails general notability guidelines WP:GNG Dwanyewest (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment  I would hope that the nominee has done the enormous work of trying to source every article he nominates--if so, he should tell us.    DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources to assert notability WP:GNG and fails on the grounds WP:SOURCES the onus is on the author to prove what they are saying is true WP:PROVEIT.Dwanyewest (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, based on JJL's quotations of sources I can't read. If this is indeed the largest martial arts association in the U.K. and if it has over 3000 member clubs, per the Mirror mention, it would be notable, and sources will very likely exist in specialized publications. Supposedly this association was started in the 1970s. I'm troubled that the Mirror article, as an off-hand mention, might be in error, so I intend to look for more sourcing, particularly from international organizations that the AMA is allegedly recognized by. "Existence" arguments are indeed insufficient, I can feel the pain of the nominator.... --Abd (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 05:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - based on some of the sources, it appears to be barely notable. Bearian (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.