Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Juego del Garrote


 * 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. Those favoring keep have established that there exist multiple reliable sources with significant discussion. It would be better if those sources were promptly added to the article, but that is not, strictly speaking, a requirement. Those favoring deletion, besides being less numerous, did not establish the lack of reliability of the cited sources. it is generally presumed that books published by independant publishers are relaibale, adn nothing was presented to show otherwise. DES (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

El Juego del Garrote

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Was contested with the reasoning that it is "well known". It may be well known, but I can't find evidence that it is notable. Gnews returns only 1 hit that is about the art and that's talking about a guy who wrote a book. It's existence or popularity in Venezuela isn't being disputed. Notability is. Most ghits I reviewed where either non-reliable sources or mere definitions that tell what it is. I'm not finding the significant third party sources to get it past WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Article has been tagged as unsourced and an orphan for 3 years. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the copious sources found in Google Books, including an entire book on the subject , and at Google Scholar , for instance, an article in the socioanthropology journal Fermentum . Of course the article says that another name for it is garrote larense (as I mentioned when I de-prodded it) and that provides copious sources through Google Scholar , e.g., an article in the Journal of Sport History , and Google Books , e.g., in this bibliographic guide . Media articlea: , , . Using Google is not that tough. Perhaps you should slow down on the prods and AfDs until you're better-positioned to check for sources on your own first, even if that means that your goal of "cleaning up the list of martial arts" might be delayed. You could also attempt to involve the martial arts project here. Finally, I commend WP:SOFIXIT to your attention. JJL (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —JJL (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have something to complain about, take it to make talk page, where it belongs and don't clutter the AfD with it. This article has sat there for 3 years without a reliable source. Then when it got prodded (by a different editor), you just dismissed the prod with "it's well known", but didn't lift a finger to add a single reliable source. Then you have the nerve to start lecturing me about nominating it. Posting a google book search doesn't show notability. It could get mentioned in 1000 books, but that doesn't mean the coverage is significant, which is the standard. And the term isn't only used for the martial art. Nor does having an "entire book on the subject" automatically make it notable, unless you are going to contend that every published book is automatically notable. There is more to notability than simply being published. The depth of coverage and signifigance of the source is more of a factor than being able to find a mere mention or a book that ranks 8,405,380 at Amazon. If you have further personal gripes with me, take it to either my talk page or at least take it to the discussion page of this AfD.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that a book used as a source should itself be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)*


 * Delete. This is a typical example of editor's claiming it isn't their problem.  No, being unsourced for three years in unacceptable.  Sorry.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 16:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment that is not the purpose of an AfD. See Introduction_to_deletion_process.
 * Keep per JJL's sources. It's not a BLP, so being unsourced isn't a valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it is a reason. Why? Because WP:N, specifically WP:GNG requires (not suggests) "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So if it is unsourced, the GNG is not met. Want something from the martial arts project? How about WP:MANOTE, which says: "Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organisation under discussion". It goes on to say: "A lack of any sources after looking around is a warning sign that an article may not be notable enough for inclusion.". Notability must come from significant coverage from reliable sources. No sources, no notability established. No notability=delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment whether or not it's notable and whether or not it's sourced are different matters. The notability must be sourceable--not necessarily sourced. Of course that's desirable, but again, per Introduction_to_deletion_process, it's not a reason for deletion. The issue at AfD is whether or not AfD can be shown--whether or not the subject is worthy of an article. After that, making it a good article is of course a good thing to do. You're mistaken, and you're misusing the AfD process. JJL (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not misusing anything. You simply are having difficulty understanding that if there isn't a source, notability isn't demonstrated. Of course this is all a strawman diversion because the lack of sources isn't the reason given. The reason given is that it fails MANOTE and GNG because of a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. That it is tagged as unsourced is an add on sentence at the end. Table your open hostility for a minute (if you can) and actually read the nomination. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping  23:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If significant sources reliable sources can be found and the article rewritten keep otherwise I vote delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. It has been demonstrated above that a whole book has been published about this subject, as well as it having significant coverage in many other reliable sources. The Amazon rating of that book has absolutely no bearing on the notability of its subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So let me understand you correctly, if anyone writes a book about any topic, that topic is now notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If that book is published by a reputable publisher, then yes. Where on earth did you get the idea that sources have to be notable, rather than reliable? If we had that requirement we would be led into an infinite regression whereby no subject could be shown to be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Phil, you and I both know that people write books every year on obscure stuff that they find personally interesting and wanted to devote time to. Claiming that the mere existence of a book on ANY topic will automatically make that topic notable is not the least bit realistic. I know you are a hard-core inclusionist, but for someone of your experience to assert that any topic is going to be automatically notable is funny. We delete articles as non-notable on a daily basis that have coverage in a reliable source. The question is whether or not the coverage is significant. I have difficulty considering a book that nobody bothered to read being that significant. BTW, is the "Centro de la Cultura Popular Canaria" a "reputable publisher"? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From the general notability guideline: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content". I don't see anything there about how many people have bothered to read the source. The "significant coverage" test is concerned with the depth of coverage of the subject, and the subject of a 70-page book, along with the other sources presented above, certainly passes that test. And, btw, the publisher is Federación Nacional de la Cultura Popular, not the Centro de la Cultura Popular Canaria. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you'd better tell Amazon they messed up, because that's the pulblisher they listed. And when the the Center of Popular Culture become a big reputable publisher? GNG also strongly suggests that more than one "significant source" be present. If one book was the desired standard, we wouldn't have a template pointing out that an article relies heavily on a single source, would we? One source is 1 POV. Saying that one book automatically makes something notable is really WP:ILIKEIT once removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As User:JJL explained above, and I have mentioned in my edits, this is not the only available source, but simply the one that provides the most coverage. The information about the publisher came from the source in the article itself, and can be confirmed from reliable sources such as Worldcat. I would advise that you use such reliable sources rather than commercial booksellers when evaluating sources. If you still insist that the subject is not notable could you please explain how the coverage in all of the sources presented does not amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, with the definitions of those terms used in the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per JJL sourcing and very sensible reasoning by Phil. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2010 (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.