Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amateur Martial Association (3rd 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

How this poor article has survived so many AFD's is beyond my understanding the only third person sources available only have trivial mentions of the organisation which do little or nothing to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  — Janggeom (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I see little substantial mention of the AMA - it just appears in listings, mirrors of this article, and other organisations that mention an affiliation / competition in passing. I did find one adequate independent source, have added a ref to the article just in case others think it should survive... bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see the independent sources that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Added to the correct dated log on 04-Jan-2011. Jarkeld (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep until keep arguments and evidence presented in the 2nd nomination are addressed. --Abd (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article makes no real claims of notability and has no independent sources. The only notability claim I see in the previous discussion is that it's a large organization and that's insufficient for notability. Astudent0 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't believe a case has been made that the organization is notable or that the article is reliably sourced. Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. In a brief search for sources, I did not find anything to suggest that this subject is, in itself, notable. Janggeom (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: As the nom the first time, I didn't, and still don't, see the notability. Like Bobraynor said above, listings and mentions, but nothing substantial. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.