Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angampora


 * 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  Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 15:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Angampora

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

There is nothing that shows this is a notable martial art or that it meets any of the criteria at WP:MANOTE. None of the sources show notability and claims of dating back 3000 years are unsourced. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Some youtube videos and an unsupported claim of being 3000 years old do not show notability. Mdtemp (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per WP:NRVE, ..."The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Northamerica1000(talk) 02:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve Many mentions between Google Scholar and Google Books, including a mention in this 1959 book Some Sinhala Combative, Field And Aquatic Sports And Games. Here is an article in The Sunday Times, a notable Sri Lankan newspaper.  Not familiar enough with the definition to say whether it qualifies as a martial art but it at least seems to be as notable a sport or game as mercy for example, if not moreso. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the sources you mention show significant reliable coverage. The book has a 1 sentence mention and the newspaper is an interview with someone who says his family has been studying and carrying on this martial art for many centuries, but there's no supporting evidence.  I've seen many examples of people claiming to know secret martial arts that have been passed down for generations without giving a single shred of proof and it's made me a bit jaded.  I haven't seen anything that shows this martial art meets any of the 5 criteria supporting notability mentioned at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that any particular claims are true: this could be some simple kids' game invented a century ago that has been re-branded as a martial art. The book is only the oldest mention that appeared to be a reliable source to me, there were several others, and Google Scholar hits too.  Whatever it is this thing called Angampora appears to have been around for at least half a century and is talked about in major newspapers in Sri Lanka where it's purported to be from; this says to me that it has sufficient notability to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, even just a stub that only contains the bare minimum verifiable information presented in a tenative way and isn't categorized as a martial art.  (Though also, I'm noting that WP:MANOTE is just an essay, not a guideline or policy; but I appreciate the urban legendy nature of obscure martial arts.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus passing WP:GNG:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 02:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 02:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 02:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 02:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 02:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 02:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

http://exploresrilanka.lk/2010/07/angampora-the-martial-art-of-sri-lankan-kings/ BernardZ (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to be a well known and traditional martial art technique in Sri Lanka. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it seems to be something very important in Sri Lanka history and culture. This is a credible source, I found about it.
 * Weak KeepSources are starting to come out of the woodwork but as a stub it just isn't credible. Unless expanded with the help of the newly discovered sources it should be deleted.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, Peter. A work in progress. Stubs are entirely legitimate. Here is how our article on Banana started. Would it be better to delete it and wait until someone writes a more detailed article? I don't think so. Short articles might inspire others to expand the information. The article Angampora — as it stands — provides a brief description of the topic and gives five independent sources. It is better than nothing. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Stubs are fine but there just isn't enough there to even imply notability. I can find press mentions of myself but if all there was in the article my age and hair colour  .... anyway what I meant is that even a stub should have enough information.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * These aren't simply passing mentions in media, these are entire newspaper articles treating the topic as a notable one. Do you have a collection in a national museums department devoted to you?  But besides that, the argument you are making about deletion isn't a valid one under Wikipedia policy; a Wikipedia article being poorly written or poorly sourced does not render its topic non-notable.  There is no "improve it or it must be deleted" principle like this. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:21, 15 May 2012 (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.