Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Campo Uno-Dos-Tres Orihinal


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

De Campo Uno-Dos-Tres Orihinal

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A non notable martial art with not independent sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourcing can be fixed.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —Astudent0 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 *  Undecided Keep I got a lot of ghits, but didn't really see independent sources. Those have now been provided.Astudent0 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment as a practicioner (and workshop attendee)of some of these styles, I know that most English language sources will be lacking. I would rather see them merged into the larger FMA or Escrima articles than just wholesale delete them.  I know they can be confusing to non-Martial types, much how I could be confused by reading something out of my element like flower-arranging styles or ballet styles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wrote a long response and then my connection went haywire when I hit save. Bottom line--These articles need independent sources to meet the Wikipedia standards for notability.  Foreign language articles are accepted with a good translation.  Many martial arts articles get deleted because of a lack of reliable independent sources.  For example, I believe De Campo 1-2-3 is notable, but a quick search didn't give me any independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely understood. Just saying that you have to dig a little deeper to find sources than google books.  I have numerous back issues of Black Belt and Inside Kung Fu magazines and a bunch of FMA books, seminar newsletters and the like that are probably not available to the deletionists wanting to kill all the FMA pieces.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. If you can add sources like the aforementioned magazines, that would be good. People who create articles should read and understand the policies--which require reliable sources.  If authors don't source their articles, they really can't complain when they're removed (or expect others to source it for them). Papaursa (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm adding what I can find, I didn't create these, but know a little about each.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject is a well known style and the article now has reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 21:42, 4 February 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.