Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chang Jia Quan


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Chang Jia Quan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable martial arts style. Nothing in the article is sourced and there are no claims to show notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep On the contrary, multiple independent sources cover the topic in detail, including news articles and academic sources. So it can esaily pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, it's listed as intangible cultural heritage protected at national level, and anything protected at a national level is inherently notable. --114.81.255.40 (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't access any of those pages so that's not much proof to me. Can you show it's an official national cultural heritage?Mdtemp (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See :   806  Ⅵ-34    苌家拳                   河南省荥阳市--114.81.255.37 (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's listed among hundreds of other things like the Lhasa Jockey Club and certain martial arts moves and forms. I still don't think it shows notability and would like to see some significant independent coverage.  If it's a national treasure it shouldn't be hard to find coverage of it. Although not required, it would be nice to see something in English since this is the English WP.  Mdtemp (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It is far from clear - there is certainly no attempt to show why the martial art is notable. There is not enough information to indicate the reliability of the references and although foreign language references are acceptable the form they are in now do not help the case.  It looks very much like the article was copy pasted from somewhere which is another issue.  I am not voting yet - but I suggest a bit of an article clean-up to make it easier to make an informed choice.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete My search didn't find significant independent coverage, although I got a number of ghits. I couldn't access the sources given by the IP above so I'm voting to delete this article unless someone comes up with some significant coverage from independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2014 (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.