Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combatic


 * 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.  Daniel Bryant  09:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Combatic

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I originally tagged this as requiring references and context, but the author removed those tags and added a citation *of himself* as reference. That action leads me to believe that this is original research. There's no substantial indication that this "combat dicipline" meets notability standards or attributability standards. Deranged bulbasaur 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. The "source" does not exist on either Amazon or the Library of Congress.  --Selket Talk 07:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced, unverified, original research. Also, the creator of the article should have made the title of this hoax more convincing, as the names of different fields of studiy usually contain the suffix "-logy" and rarely—if ever—"-ic".-- TBC Φ  talk?  07:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:OR. Also is very low on meaningful content, and contains eight spelling or grammatical errors, which in three lines may be a record.--Anthony.bradbury 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; NN, fails WP:ATT, WP:COI and probably WP:BULLSHIT into the bargain. What in the heck is this, anyway?  Ravenswing 14:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious OR. — MediaMangler 15:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Fight sciences and Category:Fight sciences may also be of interest here. GregorB 18:02, 13 March 2007 (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.