Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guided Chaos


 * 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. Consensus is that while there are some sources, they are insufficient to prove notability. Kevin (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Guided Chaos

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Badly referenced, promotional article about a non-notable sport, failing policies at WP:ARTSPAM, WP:VER and WP:N. Googling "Guided chaos" and eliminating blogs, wikis etc yields very few hits, most of which are to online bookstores. I'm sure it's a very fine martial art form but sadly nobody has ever heard of it. andy (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep 6 gnews hits including the new york times, 35 google book hits not all are relevant, but most are, and 14 google scholar hits, although most don't seem relevant although some are.--UltraMagnusspeak 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this is extremely misleading. You're giving the impression that there's an undercurrent of interest in this subject by mentioning large numbers of hits many of which, by implication, are relevant. In fact the exact opposite is the truth. You mention a total of 55 possibly relevant hits whereas there are actually exactly three, two of which are simply sales pitches.


 * There's only one relevant gnews hit - four of the hits are about something entirely different and the other two reference the same NYT article.


 * Having entries in Google Books doesn't show notability, simply that you're trying to sell some books. But in any case most of those 22 hits are irrelevant (not 35 - go to the last results page to see how many hits there really are). I count exactly two that are about the subject of this article, plus one other that seems to be about a rival


 * And only one of the Google Scholar hits is relevant - and it links to exactly the same site as one of the Google Books hits, namely a look inside the book that the article's author is trying to promote.
 * andy (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

a new york times article (and video) and an article in Black belt magazine is more than Chuck Norris' style has. They have a reference to his book and some youtube videos. There are many martial arts articles that are more poorly referenced. This is an art that is the basis for the national bestseller for self-defense. That makes it noteworthy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_He_Ba_Fa has NO references. Norris' style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chun_Kuk_Do has as it's references: It's own book, two youtube videos, and a site where you can pay to advertise your school. This article is better referenced than that any day of the week, regardless of what web searches bring up. -Devin  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that other articles are even more badly referenced is no reason why this article should be kept. Why not nominate the others for deletion as well? One article in a worthy newspaper and one in a specialist magazine is pretty borderline for establishing notability (BTW the video is the video of the article, so that's one reference not two). And where's the evidence that the book is the national bestseller or even a national bestseller? andy (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - the article does not assert the notability of this martial art. (See WP:ITEXISTS)  A merge to its founder, or to its founder's book, may also be an appropriate option. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless improved. Needs some quality sources to back up the article text and assert notability. Beach drifter (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2009 (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.