Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight Pattern Wing Chun


 * 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 17:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Eight Pattern Wing Chun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources in this article don't seem to support a claim of notability. Prod removed by author with no improvement of sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, you are way too fast for me. Would you at least please wait for my statement next time? I removed the deletion proposal by Noq (notability concerns). Please elaborate on your reasons and provide your background in this topic if you still think this page should be deleted, but consider first other articles in this area (compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Chi_Wing_Chun for example). You will find out that Wing Chun itself is not a widely public topic, so independent sources are rare overall. The book review which is the main source for this article is independent and if you are a Wing Chun insider you should have noticed by now through many discussion boards that this Wing Chun branch is indeed notable, being the first one with an open and published curriculum.GruberMatthias (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)GruberMatthias (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone help me here? This is really hard for me, I just wrote my first article here and much quicker than I can react proposals for deletion are flying in - I do not understand, other articles on this topic like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Chi_Wing_Chun have no independent sources at all and are still here - what did I do wrong?GruberMatthias (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the sentence "Prod removed by author with no improvement of sources" meant to be an argument pro deletion? Because I just read on the Deletion Policy that one should do just that if one disagrees. I am about to remove your (FisherQueen) deletion tag as well which should be OK according to the part in the deletion policy where it says ''If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.'' Or am I getting this wrong?GruberMatthias (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I should not delete the tag if I get this correctly. However, can someone please point out to me some points of improvement potential? I have tried to be really neutral and cannot see why this would not be notable compared to other, similar articles. So what should I do? You are all very fast with deletion proposals, but once I asked for constructive feedback there seems to be silence.... Please help me a little here!GruberMatthias (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was proposed for deletion for the reasons given in the proposal - it does not indicate how it is WP:notable and does not provide WP:reliable sources to show notability. Google searches do not find anything significant either. As noted on your talk page, writing about things you are associated with is discouraged as a WP:conflict of interest.  The Chung Chi Wing Chun article has now been proposed for deletion as well. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping an article that does not meet the notability criteria. Removing the proposed deletion notice without improving the article does not make it immune from other deletion processes and probably makes it more likely that either a speedy deletion or AFD discussion will be instigated. noq (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage found. noq (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OK thank you, I start to understand better now what is going on here. However, in my view the Wing Chun Illustrated review IS proof of notability and it IS a reliable source. Being the only widely known lineage independent Wing Chun magazine and having published a critical review about the foundation work of the style (being one of the very few articles concerned with non-commercial Wing Chun lineages) is surely significant. The conflict of interest cannot be denied, however as to my understanding can in itself not be a reason for deletion. Pointing out a part in the article which you don't find to be neutral might change that / give me a chance to improve the article, though. Again, please consider that martial arts in general are not very strong on the "written, neutral sources" side... And again, it would be nice to get some constructive advice for a change... GruberMatthias (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason for the AFD is lack of notability - the conflict of interest is not the reason we are here but is just pointed out to you. The one reference you provided that you were not involved in writing is a small circulation, print on demand magazine, reviewing a self published book - not enough to establish notability of your course curriculum. noq (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well we might have to agree to disagree on this: the "Wing Chun Illustrated" to my knowledge is the ONLY independent print source for Wing Chun in English language, and they have a review process ensuring that the content is of interest to the target group. Surely, if the "Wing Chun press" sees the foundation work of Eight Pattern Wing Chun as notable, we could accept this? Also I would think that most martial arts style's foundation works are "self-published", so this should not be of substance to this discussion. GruberMatthias (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A small publication that is likely to review anything that mentions Wing Chun is really not likely to be a reliable source. Reviewing your course curriculum that you published yourself does not make your course notable. Wikipedia requires that articles are WP:verifiable in WP:reliable sources, and it does not seem that your article meets these requirements. noq (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability has not been established through reliable independent references. Really this is no more than a school advertisment.Peter Rehse (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: No references on Trove. Nothing on Google Books.  Nothing on WorldCat. Nothing at the NSIC. Nothing on SportDiscus. Not convinced notable. I checked in my sport reference books for this style and none in those. --LauraHale (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have never even heard of the sources you seem to think are valuable, except for Google Books and WorldCat, but maybe that's because I am from Europe; there are other, well established German language sources here. Since I have blocked Google Books on purpose and triggered ISBN listings only a week ago, I am not surprised at that either. Thanks for the help guys, I might try again once the upcoming 4-5 books about Eight Pattern Wing Chun are on the market (some of which will not be written by myself). But don't count on it. Obviously wikipedia has become too heavyweight to cope with relatively new things (my lineage exists since 1999 but has only left the shades of secrecy in 2011). I have read hundreds of pages of policies in the last days and these are - how should I put it - well trying to be more thorough than the science community, which is known to be a huge pile of self-selection mechanisms. Once writing or editing a wikipedia article became more complex and difficult than hosting a wikipedia on my own, this has gone ad absurdum. Good luck and give the best to the dinosaurs. I will not make the mistake of investing energy here again anytime soon. @Peter: This is no school ad, had you given it a second of your time you would have found out that I do not advertise at all, since I do not have a business. Eight Pattern Wing Chun is a free, open lineage. The curriculum is for everyone. Also it is quite ignorant of you to think that the Wing Chun Illustrated would be "likely to review anything that mentions Wing Chun". Good luck with that. GruberMatthias (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per lack of reliable sources covering the topic in depth and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

In this case I would recommend you to take a good look at ALL articles around the topic Wing Chun, I have not found much that could hold to these policies. If for example you think that the book Roots and Branches of Wing Chun by Leung Ting is in any way a reliable source or something else than advertisement, think again and talk to some people who actually know things about Wing Chun. And this is just the least non-reliable source which is used in this context. Delete all Wing Chun topics, or none please. Otherwise you are distorting the competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GruberMatthias (talk • contribs) 19:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are other martial arts articles that don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it would be very helpful of you to nominate them for deletion. Be careful that you take time to research each one first, and don't nominate them for deletion just to make a point, but if an article doesn't belong here, it's helpful to point that out.  However, that isn't relevant to this discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment may be related to Branches of Wing Chun, which is in need of attention. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For sure that article needs some attention. A slash and burn of some of the unreferenced material and then built up again.  If Matthias is still around that would be the place for his style.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Some constructive advice here, thanks! I will let you wiki cracks do what you need to do, and after I see what's left I might think about a second attempt to at least get my book or branch mentioned. GruberMatthias (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2012 (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.