Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empty Force


 * 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. The consensus is to keep, while noting that improvements are needed according to the consensus here  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Empty Force

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article lacks significant independent sources and is about a topic of dubious notability. The very existence of such a force is questionable.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —Jakejr (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * keep The existence of such a force might be highly questionable, scientifically, but there does appear to be some amount of discussion in martial arts circles. A brief google search found a book, articles, and a few supposed "demonstration videos" on youtube as well. I suspect more sources exist, but are in Chinese or Korean or under a different name (Translating Martial Arts concepts from Chinese can be tricky and lead to myriad names for the same thing, see how Chi is sometimes spelled Qi, Khi, Ki, Ji and so on).  Appears to be a notable concept in Tai Chi and the idea of Chi/Qi.  Heck it even pops up in a 70s-style kung fu exploitation game book I own (Ninjas and Superspies).  If it's made it that far, it's met the threshold of cultural assimilation, "true" in the Western objective sense or not. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and this article gives no reliable and independent sources that show this force exists. I've seen many martial artists claim to have this power, but I've never seen one successfully demonstrate it on someone not affiliated with the practioner.  If reliable and independent sources can be found and added, then I do think this article might be kept even though its existence is unproven.  By independent sources I don't mean debates over whether so-and-so can do this. Papaursa (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Papaaursa: Wikipedia does not require proof, only notability.  We have articles on many things that are demonstrably false, like Orgonne Energy, but are still notable.  The fact alone that you have seen "many martial artists claim this power" indicates it has a place in culture.  I'll look for some reliable sources but a cursory google search indicated at least one book and many other hits. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also seen a number of martial arts programs that claim to make you a killing machine in 1 or 2 days and met many martial artists that think their black belt makes them a world beating fighter--I don't think any of those are notable either. The problem is that the martial arts are full of bogus claims and I hate to support one with no real evidence that it exists.  I also agree with the post below that the article is biased in tone.  However, in my previous post I did say it's possible to have an article on something that may not exist and this may well be one of those cases.  The article needs to be made neutral in tone and improved, but probably can be fixed to meet WIkipedia's notability standards. Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be a popular tai chi topic. However, this article is one-sided and seems to imply the force exists when there's no scientific evidence of it. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 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.