Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choi Kwang- do


 * 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. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Choi Kwang- do

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This martial art is not notable. The few sources that assert any kind of notability come directly from the style's own website. RogueNinja talk  10:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As nominatior, delete RogueNinja talk  10:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The style is notable, as we can all clearly see, Choi kwang do is world wide and mentioned in every martail magazine, we have proved notable, this is just another dig at me from rogueninja. Not notable are you kidding, its one of the largest martial arts in the world, see the locations on the web site, also see indian times, also see tae kwon time hall of fame, aslo combat all of fame Ralph Allison, there si 400 schools in th uk and 1000s across the world, usa, europe, asia, canade, new zealand ect. laughable10:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The above was left by User:Diamonddannyboy, the page's creator.  RogueNinja talk  11:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes thank you RogueNinja for to sign, but thanks for point that out, cheers.Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see history from other editors saying that it meets notable ctriteria, kwang Jo Choi the found of Choi kwang do was one of the original Grand Masters of Tae kwon do a korean fighting art, he was responsible for the spread of Tae kwon do to the USA, Kwang Jo choi meets WP:ATHLETE criteria at the highest level. Aslo he heads the large internation organisation Choi kwang do, but the Kwang Jo Choi article has not been put up for deletion, more personal again I believe. We have also used other reliable sources from around the world, not just the CHoi kwang do web site, but article from combat magazine, tae kwon do time, men health and Hindu times from india, it world wide, and very notable. Thanks again. 11:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Bilby removed notabilty tag as article now proves notable.11:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This Reference proves notable --Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment See Indian Times, also choi kwang do has been the news world wide, see CNN and Fox ect.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment RogueNinja may have bias interest in martial arts hence the name Rogue Ninja, Ninjas were sent down from the moutians of Japan to kill the enermy the samuri, yet the samuri live on, Sun Zu said you must know you 100 % and your enermy 100% if you know you 50 and your enermy 50, you will win half and lose half, this is all said in a friendly manner and is ment to lighten the mood of a some what un funny AFD. Good luck my Ninja Friend and may we meet again on the battle field of this mighty editing war. Pil-Suhng!!--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Confusion I have no idea what you just said. You claim to be a native english speaker on your user page, but I dont think that is true.  RogueNinja talk  11:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Please explain, what did you not understand, about the above message, I am tring to lighten the mood, yet again you make personal attacks about my English, I am from England I speak English, I am tring with you Rogue, why the attacks my friend why ? What do you meen, is it some wikipedia Joke about my editing that only newbies dont get, please fill me in, what is the problem, can I do any thing to resolve this issue.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Maybe this will help to prove notable, now choi kwang do is based in Alanta, do we agree, so why if it is not notable, is it being talked about in a UK magazine [] mmmm let me think !!! In the words of Bruce Lee, 'Don't Think feel' feel the positive energy Ninja, feel it my friend, Karma --Diamonddannyboy (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Is the above reference from RogueNinja about my ethnic back ground ie Romany or are you just kidding, also RogueNinja could you put your thoughts about the article, why you think it is not notable on the talk page, would that not have been the first step before afd.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment No, I don't believe that the comment from RogueNinja was about your ethnic background. It is, I would suggest, fair comment to say that your use of the English Language has certain "quirks". I would also suggest that it is not doing your cause any favours to leap to an assumption that somebody is doing you down because of your Romany background. Please WP:AGF, and unless something is VERY clearly an ethnic attack, assume that it isn't. Quite apart from anything else, it is in your interests to do so, as if people feel that they have to tread on eggshells around you, lest you interpret it as an ethnic slur, they will undoubtedly be less inclined to work with you. Mayalld (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article looks well sourced to me. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The article has established notability, and while it needs work there isn't a case to answer - at least not on the grounds on which it's been nominated It has several articles referenced, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the website, and most of which are reliable sources. The article did have significant problems, and needs a fair bit of development, but I can't see any problems that wouldn't be handled through the usual editing processes. - Bilby (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I totally agree with keeps, I believeRogueNinja may have a conflict of interest with choi kwang do coming from a traditional back ground of karate, I to come from a traditional back ground, and have sent friendly comments to Rogue about Choi kwang do see his talk page, hopefully he can see the benefits of this art, problems with most people in martial arts and across the world is they believe there is Karate, kick boxing and Judo, and that it, how ever there are many martial arts, but only one uses biomechanics and that CKD, it is notable, hopefully we can iron out any other bits that need doing.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please can we Not get into style vs style, 'what-the-public-believe' and linage wars as they are completely irrelevant in an AfD debate. P.S claiming it is the only one to use biomechanics is tenuous in the extreme, as there are, as you point out many marital arts. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I was not getting into style Vs style or Linage im not in martial art politic, I have trained in most of the traditional styles and have over 30 years martial art experience, Choi kwang do is the only martial art using Biomechanics because it it a modern science and not a traditional style using lock out movements.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Err where dose Tai Chi use lock-out movements? My point is you do not know about every MA out there, for example boxing & other sport arts include aspects of biomechanics, though they may not refer to it as such --Nate1481(t/c) 09:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. "I have trained in most of the traditional styles" Ok there are over 100 styles listed in Martial arts and some of those, jujutsu, karate and kung fu for example, are collective descriptions of 30+ styles so even ignoring 'modern' ones we are talking well over 200 different styles listed on wikipedia (and then their are those not here...) Please don't try and overstate you experience, while you may well be very experienced in you area remember just how big a topic this is. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment to above I have trained in the more known martial arts, such as Karate, kickboxing, Tae kwon do, Judo, Ju jit su, Mauy Thai, BBJ, Boxing, and Kung fu, I agree there are many types of these arts ie Kung fu, wing Chun, wing tzun, tai chi, Tai Chi does have lock out movements'puch hands', and boxing does not use biomechanics, as the arm loks out at speed in a punch and retracts the same way, this is not boimechanics, just simply pushing off the rear foot is not biomechanics, I am and agree with you experienced and am a ABA boxing coach, so I know what I am talking about, but lets have this debate out side the afd please.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Your correct other sports do use biomechanics, ie Golf, baseball and cricket, the golfer follows through with the club, a boxer does not follow through with a punch, he needs to hit, then retract the punch quickly, biomechanics are also healthy for the body. I also have a degree in sports science and am a fitness instructor, My degree was with the Greenwich university before you ask.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Seems to (just) scrape in on notability. Mayalld (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per above. JJL (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It is sourced, and while it needs some improvement in some areas, (e.g. more secondary sources a primary source for training police/military is not good) there is not good reason to delete it as their are multiple 2ndary sources given and would seem to establish notability. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Did any of you actually read the sources? They fall into 3 categories.  1)They dont load, or cant be found online.  2)They talk about the grandmaster of the art, not the art itself.  3)They fail WP:RS.    RogueNinja talk  16:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I read them. (Well, I had to, as I sourced most of them) :) Just to clarify: The two articles in The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution specifically discuss both the style and the grandmaster, as evidenced by their titles. The Cairns Post article is specifically about the style and the opening of new training centers in the region. The Times of India article is about an individual proponent, but he goes into some detail about the style. The Hindu Times article is short, but is about the introduction of the style to school girls. Both of these are available online. The Emergency Nurse article was a bit of a surprise - it specifically discusses the style as an option for emergency nurses. Odd, but notable. :) The Positive Health Magazine article is entirely about the style, online, and quite long, but I'm suspicious that it reads like an advertorial, so I wouldn't count it toward notability. The TKD magazine article is sourced from the organisation's website, and I would rather see the original. But while it is an interview with the Grandmaster, most of it is about the style. (I won't be happy until I confirm that it is a faithful copy of the original, though, but I suspect it is above board). The Newton Kansan is online and discusses the grandmaster and the style, but it also reads a bit like an advertorial, and I don't know the source, so I'm suspicious. In short: at least half of the references speak to notability. I'm not sure what links were broken, but I tested all the references, and they seemed ok. And there is no problem with using articles that are not online: they need to be able to be checked, but being online isn't a prerequisite. Otherwise we'd have an awful lot of trouble with books. :) - Bilby (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How did they fail WP:RS, could you give some details? I skimmed for mentions & found them in the online ones & pointed out the primary source problem as the only exceptional claim others seem average. It dose need a re-work for tone in places. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 *  message to Bilby I have some TKD Magazines that I can scan in, if you would like me to send them to you as I did with the other ones let me know, also Paul Ciffton the editor of TKD Magazine and Combat Magazine maybe able to help he can be contacted through the Combat web site--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - independent sources found by the looks of things. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * speedy delete This article was deleted last year, and we went through all this rigmarole last year. BMurray (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Was it sourced @ that point? --Nate1481(t/c) 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The last Choi kwang do article was done by another author, who did not source any of the references, this one strongly meets notabilty, no case to question, again talk has a bias because he trains in another style, and strongley supports koo self defence--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as I'm aware, this isn't a reason for deletion unless the new material simply recreates the old. In this case the new material has been created from scratch, is sourced, and needs to be judged on its own merits. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * delete I think the art is still a little obscure LazyDaisy (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please Obscure, have you gone onto the Choi kwang do website, have you seen how many locations they have, obscure, how can it be when it is based in the USA and is spoke about in India and News Zealand and europe, just google it and its on every page, its been in every martial art magazine.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment LazyDaisy has not done alot since Feb 2007, a bit strange pops up in this afd--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep seems very widespread. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29 2 April 2008 (GMT).
 * Delete As per rogue ninja's reasons PTluw777 (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment see PTluw777 talk page he has been accused of sock puppeting withLazyDaisy and vandalising the old choi kwang do page, funny how both this editors have popped again in th afd--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * sorry Read the above wrong LazyDaisy accused PTluw777 of being a sock puppet and vandalism on previous choi kwang do, so has a bias.
 * Keep I used to subscribe to Tae Kwan Do Times and remembered Choi Kwang Do was even on the cover one month: TKD Times Jan. 2007 With all the other TKD Times references and the other references listed in the wiki article it seems to me that this is a valid and recognized martial art, though clearly not as well known as Tae Kwan Do or Muay Thai. The initial comment of it not being notable is clearly wrong and seems to come from a biased opinion. --Fortec —Preceding comment was added at 03:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)  — Fortec (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment I find myself in a quandry here! Whilst the source that has been supplied by is a good one, and whilst I have already gone Week Keep on this article, I can't help but suspect that  is a sockpuppet. First edits to defend an article at AfD, coupled with a failure to WP:AGF are highly suspect. Mayalld (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has several references, which indicates notability. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  16:09, 8 April 2008 (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.