Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheongye Kwan (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 Userfied - The page was moved to userspace while this AfD was open, and the redirect was deleted as R2. Whilst that is outside AfD procedures, it was at the apparent behest of the author; there's no point in continuing this discussion, as there is no longer a live page. I note here that, apart from the article creator (, all comments suggested deletion. NAC  Chzz  ► 16:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheongye Kwan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I found this article after removing a couple of links planted in articles on martial arts. The previous AfD decision was to delete it, and even though 2 years have passed, nothing much has changed since then. While this organization probably does exist indeed, the article lacks reliable sources, or they are difficult to verify. Also, the organization/style may fail notability criteria. Quick Google search does not bring any promising independent publications on this organization/style, it only proves that it exists. If anybody could help to straighten this up, that's great. Otherwise, the article may not meet our criteria. Pundit | utter 01:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This artacle has been worked on alongside several wiki operators who have all contributed and made the page accetable for inclussion on wikipedia. Granted more work is needed and people will update and edit over time, but it has been granted as ok for now which is why it was uploaded by chzz.

As for the planted links comment... I was asked to seek out and attach links back to my page, as well as addind categories. Complience has been maintained and advice taken on board, and I believe this article can stand as is, ready for future edits and add ons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 15:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing stops you from adding verifiable and notable sources, while the discussion goes here. I'm afraid that the main problem is that there are none, though. Pundit | utter  15:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but these things can be added by working with the page creators and assisting them to make things better over time once a solid base page has been set up, rather than just issuing blanket delete submissions without first helping the writers, thats just unhelpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I honestly don't believe this article satisfies our criteria for reliability, verifiability, and foremostly notability. There is plenty of time to prove me wrong, I will be more than happy to see this article straighten up, really! It is just that for now it seems as if it didn't qualify and I, personally, don't see where I could assist to make it better. If you believe that this article satisfies the notability criteria, tell us how. Btw, please make sure that you avoid a conflict of interest - I'm not saying you are in it, I'm just observing that beginners, especially if they have single purpose accounts, may unknowingly fall into one. In any case, please make this article better as soon as possible, it will definitely help to persuade the others (and me, too).  Pundit | utter  16:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

On occassions when one of you dissagrees with another (since this page was made live by one of you) why didnt you simply request that I move this page back to the fixing it/work on it area rather than just the over-use of authoruty and blanket delete. It seems a harsh and unhelpful action from people whos role seems to be one of assistance, which is looking more like of a role a disproval. As mentioned, several operators looked, worked and helped me on this and then THEY made it live. If you (or another) disagrees, then surely a more prudent action is moving it so as to facilitate fixing it rather than suggesting delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The only problem is that I don't see how it can be fixed. I think it does not meet the notability criteria (reason for deletion 1). Also, it lacks verifiable, reliable sources (reason 2). If you know how 1&2 can be fixed: go ahead, and I encourage anyone else to do the same. Please, keep in mind that even if the page gets deleted you will be able to request moving its deleted content to your sandbox. For your convenience I also made a current copy of the article here, in your namespace. Pundit | utter  17:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No assertion of notability has been made in the article, and on a brief search for sources I have been unable to find any reliable sources that demonstrate notability. The subject does not appear to meet any of the following Wikipedia martial arts criteria supporting inclusion: 1 (subject of an independent article), 2 (long, externally verifiable history), 3 (multiple notable practitioners), 4 (large number of students), or 5 (competitive successes in large, inter-style tournaments). The subject does appear to meet both of the following Wikipedia martial arts criteria supporting deletion: 1 (short history), and 2 (single/few schools that teach the art). The subject's status on some of these points might change if reliable sources come to light contesting the apparent status as noted at this time. Apart from those points, the article is substantially a reproduction of the previously deleted version from 3 November 2009. The only significant changes since then appear to be the addition of a list of 'celebrity friends' and a small section on the founder, neither of which demonstrate the subject's notability. A copy of the article has been moved to the primary author's user pages by another contributor, as requested, so work is able to continue on the article if desired. The primary author requested advice on the article on 26 November 2011 and received a response regarding notability (from me); had I been aware at the time that the article had previously been deleted, I would have provided more extensive feedback. Given the timeframes involved (advice requested on 26 November, advice provided on 27 November, article moved from user pages on 28 November, article nominated for deletion on 29 November), it does not appear that the primary author has had time to address the notability concerns—but it should be noted that notability was already very clearly raised as an issue two years ago. In good faith, the best advice I could give to the primary author is to do a bit of reading (at the links I provided in my feedback) and gain a better understanding of notability before continuing to work on the article. Janggeom (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This page meets most of the basic criteria for a Martial Arts page including references, newspaper articles, websites, and checkable points. User:ckduk 17:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, which of these references are both reliable and verifiable to you? Also, could you possibly comment on the fundamental notability issue raised here, as well as Janggeom's point above? I don't want to be pushy, I am really curious in finding out how you see these particular problems. Pundit | utter  18:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I've just checked - the only "independent" reference looks like a sponsored article, encouraging to call or check the website to sign up. Other "references" include yellowbook-like entries. Pundit | utter  18:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the section "Other sources" lists five other articles in newspapers and magazines that could very well be independent reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I found nothing that shows notability or reliable sources. I agree with the comments by Pundit and Janggeom. Astudent0 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I Google for "Lancashire Evening Post" and "Cheongye Kwan" and I don't see the referenced article anywhere. I searched the newspaper's website also, but found nothing.   D r e a m Focus  10:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Something not being in Google does not make it unacceptable as a source - see comment by User:John of Reading below. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have contacted the newspaper myself who told me that articles from that far back are not kept online digitally, although I do have the article, which is why I was able to add the details to this wiki page. Their is also an article on this page from another newspaper The Preston Citizen, so that makes 2 independant newspapers on their! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, but since nobody can access these easily, they fail the verifiability criterion. Btw, out of curiosity, perhaps you can put it somewhere? Pundit | utter  21:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Verifiability does not require easy access. See WP:V and Offline sources. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, and I respect that. Yet, if THE ONLY source the article relies on is the one all who may be skeptical about the content are unable to get, it just does not appease my concerns. Since the main author claims s/he has the article, I thought it would not be preposterous to ask for a copy for my own use. Pundit | utter  01:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I have searched appropriate databases and Google News archive for coverage of this school but to no avail. All the article located in the "Other sources" section would establish notability not for Cheongye Kwan but for Barry since they are about him. Cheongye Kwan fails the GNG. Goodvac (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't necessarily follow - since we only know the titles of almost all most of those articles, it's plausible that, despite their titles, their actual content could go on to discuss Cheongye Kwan at length. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is plausible, but so long as the creator,, does not comment on the content of these articles, there is nothing to go on except their titles, which suggest they are primarily about Barry. Let's look at each article/title:
 * "Barry hunting for Taekwondo talent" from Lancashire Evening Post — unsure
 * "Barry to coach GB Taekwondo Team" from Lancashire Evening Post — article does not mention Cheongye Kwan.
 * "GB role for Barry" from Bristol Evening Post — primarily about Barry because the title suggests that the subject of the article is the same as that of the article immediately above.
 * "BTA National Poomse Coach" from Taekwondo & Korean Martial Arts Magazine — since Barry is a British Taekwondo Aliance (BTA) coach, it is unlikely this article would discuss Cheongye Kwan.
 * "At the height of power" from Rochdale Observer — title tells me nothing.
 * So there are two articles that could contain coverage of Cheongye Kwan—"Barry hunting for Taekwondo talent" and "At the height of power". Goodvac (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article "Barry hunting for Taekwondo talent" "Barry to coach GB taekwondo team" you linked (thanks!) actually looks pretty much like a paid ad: it links to the schools website, advices to contact the secretary, and gives praise to the one-year old club (then). It also speaks of Barry Peake in a way, which may imply he was in the Olympics (weasel/clever wording), while it seems he wasn't. Pundit | utter  19:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I agree with your analysis of the source, which is actually "Barry to coach GB taekwondo team" rather than "Barry hunting for Taekwondo talent". I haven't found the latter anywhere on the web. Goodvac (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right! Pundit | utter  21:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Cheongye Kwan Daehando is a remarkable Korean Martial Arts association helping countless people to be better and stronger individuals. It has Government backing via local council support (link on article) and has the full support of a National Taekwondo Governing Body (The BTA) under the Kukkiwon in Korea. Whilst some of you may find it difficult to use the word Notable because of the wiki guidlines, this association is very well know and respected around the world by many famous Martial Arts actors and celebrities (photos here http://www.cheongye.co.uk/photos4.html and http://www.cheongye.co.uk/photos5.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 22:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All this is important and if it indeed is so, I'm sure that you will easily find reliable sources to prove it. Pictures themselves, unfortunately, are not enough - after all non-notable people also take pictures with celebrities, etc. Pundit | utter  01:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Question for creator Would you either upload scans of the articles in the "Other sources" section onto the Internet somewhere (like Flickr) so we can view the content or comment on the content of each article? Goodvac (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. But I dont see that this alone will cancel the delete request making it a pointless exercise. If this is all that is needed to save the page, then yes by all means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot guarantee that your uploading the articles for viewing will prevent deletion. However, if the articles contain in-depth coverage of Cheongye Kwan and appear to be independent (written with a neutral point of view), I will change my delete opinion to support retention. Goodvac (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that Pundit has taken a personal effort to ensure that this page not be used (which I am sure he will dispute in his next comment), and the association, staff and instructors of the Cheongye Kwan deserve far more respect and courtesy for what they have achieved and become than is being shown here. With this said, we believe that no amount of effort will save the article, and therefore nolonger wish to persue inclussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talk • contribs) 13:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Ckduk, I really have NOTHING personal against Cheongye Kwan. I have huge respect to people dedicating their life to perfecting martial arts. The only thing is that in MA environment there are really many, many non-notable schools, fractions, or styles. Notability and respect are two different things. For example, I am quite convinced that Cheongye Kwan is a no-nonsense, no bullshido, real MA school. I do have my doubts, however, if this school satisfies our criteria for inclusion into encyclopedia. I gave you links to verifiability, notability, and independent sources rules - so far you have decided not to address these particular points. Believe me, if the sources are available, I will be glad to see this school covered in Wikipedia. For now I am just convinced (possibly wrongly) that this school is too small, and too non-notable to be described, and that Wikipedia article may serve its self-promotion. Pundit | utter  16:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is now at User:Ckduk/Cheongye Kwan -- John of Reading (talk) 13:56, 3 December 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.