Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guang Jia Quan


 * 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. May become notable; isn't yet. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Guang Jia Quan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable martial arts form. Searches turn up only a Facebook group. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So a web search didn't turn up many results? And? Are you a martial arts expert? Do you know all styles that exists? This is not an online-game, but something that exists in the real world. Who are you that you can deny an existing martial art with masters and students training in it? I entered this article about Guang Jia Quan to help my master promote his style. What do you need to make it notable? Do you need his Sifu-certificate or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panny129 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply No, I'm not an expert on martial arts. But Wikipedia has notability standards that must be met in order for a topic to be included.  This includes significant coverage of the topic by independent sources.  If you can provide references to such sources (such as profiles of this new style in major martial arts magazines), that would help.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I too am not a martial arts expert, but I regard myself as something of an expert in Googling. I can find nothing that indicates notability. In fact, I can find little at all. And please take note: "I entered this article about Guang Jia Quan to help my master promote his style." - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a directory or free webspace. It is for recording, not promoting. If you want free space, go to aboutus or LinkedIn. Peridon (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: Who are we? We are the regular editors patrolling Wikipedia to keep up its standards. Peridon (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This article shows no notability. It is an new art practiced by very few.  It fits the description of things under WPMA/N that are not notable. Papaursa (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just delete it I don't know what you are waiting for. Our style is non notable and the master, a direct student of Shaolin Monks Shi Su Gang (30. Generation) and Shi De Yu (31. Generation), is non notable too. The approximately 100 students currently training with our Sifu are also just non notable if you compare it to our 6 billion people living on this planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panny129 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP I hope the regular editors patrolling Wikipedia to keep up it standards will get their entries in Wikipedia soon, so that they can finally get their online fame ;) No need to listen to this, or better delete this soon that nobody can read it anymore. Now guys...really...I never thought that Wikipedia or the people who stand behind this are that narrow minded. Encyclopedia's were created to let people know about something that they do not yet know. And you self titled 'regular editors' are taking this chance away from the people because it is in your opinion non-notable. Do you think this is fair? How can you make the decision of what is important for the people and what not? According to what you say it is like if somebody would find a cure for HIV but you guys will delete the entry because it is still new... many HIV infected people are not cured and because it is not yet mentioned on 5 billion websites. Sorry to say but you guys really just try to hide behind some rules and regulations even so it is stated in most cases that a rule can but must not apply. The stuff you do is a bad testimonial and discredits wikipedia as a free open encyclopedia. Of course the things I just wrote are not important because I just opened this account today. Yes I am another student of Guang Jia Quan and I just needed to say what my fellow students think about this and about you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisChan92 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Instead of invective, how about references? This IS an encyclopaedia, not a directory or a site like aboutus which provides space for promoting something. A cure for HIV? If it's real, you can bet your bottom currency unit that there'll be plenty of very reliable sources as soon as it is confirmed to work. Whether I have a Wikipedia entry or not is irrelevant (and as I maintain anonymity, I ain't saying, but if no-one else thought to post it, I wouldn't do it myself). I repeat the quote from above: "I entered this article about Guang Jia Quan to help my master promote his style." To me, that's advertising. Peridon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 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.