Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun Kata


 * 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. IronGargoyle 18:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gun Kata

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research. No reliable sources on the topic. Recury 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article needs better sourcing, but a quick look at Google Books and Google News shows reliable sources mentioning Gun Kata exist. PubliusFL 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that gives more than a passing mention of it. Links? Recury 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup - Article requires more sources as per Publius, but the topic itself is not original research (although many of the statements currently in the article about the topic might be). This necessitates cleanup, not deletion.  ◄ Zahakiel ►  23:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't contend that the topic itself is original research, just that there aren't enough non-trivial, reliable sources on the subject. Recury 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is my point. The topic should not be deleted, it should be sourced.  I notice in the external links that there are entire sites dedicated to the subject, and there seem to be quotes from the director who developed it. That's hardly trivial and as reliable as can reasonably be asked.  I've seen worse articles become quite decent with dedication from the right editor.  ◄ Zahakiel ►  00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The external links are self-published by what appear to be fans and thus would not qualify as reliable. I don't think the topic can ever be properly sourced, in which case WP:V says we have to delete. Recury 02:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They may be published by fans, but that does not necessarily mean that they do not contain verifiable content, as per the interview I mentioned above. Since we are dealing with a fictional art, the converse of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" from WP:RS provides some leeway (i.e., you aren't going to find a scholarly paper or journal article on this topic).  This does not mean the topic cannot be provided with useful and verifiable data (which I believe it has).  To quote: Not all sources on a topic are equally reliable, and some sources will have differing degrees of reliability in different contexts.  In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors. Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically.


 * I would say that this context (fiction) does not require the kinds of sources you appear to be requiring. Not to belabor this too long, but I do believe that if the sources were actively referenced in the text of the article, it would resolve most objections.  To clarify/ammend something I said previously with more precise terms, I think the topic is sourced properly - you can't get more accurate or valid than the individuals (director and choreographer) who developed it - but not referenced properly, which is a different matter. Let's give the other editors an opportunity to weigh in.  ◄ Zahakiel ►  04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:V makes no exceptions for fiction, and I don't know why you think it would. You don't need a journal article or anything, just something written in a movie review or an article in a magazine or something. It's not like there's a shortage of people writing about this kind of stuff. Recury 14:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about exceptions... a careful reading of what I said will demonstrate this. I actually quoted from RS to underscore what I both said and meant.  As far as the article goes, there are sources cited, there are interviews provided.  I would not be against a merge and redirect, as others have mentioned, but I don't think we should delete an article simply because someone is not satisfied with some pretty direct sourcing for the topic.  I had not intended to comment on this subject again, I think one person weighing in too often is counter-productive, but I do not wish to be misquoted - I understand how WP:V works.   ◄ Zahakiel ►  15:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From RS: "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." From WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There are none, so it gets deleted. Recury 16:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns about the sources provided, and it is true that they do not contain as detailed descriptions as what appears in the (apparently) primary source of the article's data. In light of this I would then support a Merge to Gun fu with such information as can be obtained from the verifiable sources provided.  A redirect from Gun Kata to Gun fu would then work, since - as others have pointed out and I don't think anyone has disputed - the topic is notable, therefore likely a subject of searches.  ◄ Zahakiel ►  17:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge The related term Gun fu has more history of use although that article too is in serious need of work.  I am waiting for the result of an afd debate on Gun Fu - Animal Fighting Styles before I do a slash and hack but in reallity Gun fu and Gun Kata refer to the same thing.  Not a true martial art but movie action skill.Peter Rehse 05:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's notable in the same manner as other modern cinematic techniques (e.g. bullet time); I think the tone of the article should reflect this however, rather than treating it as a martial art (albeit a fictional one). So I also support a merge with Gun fu and giving the article a broader scope - as well as a cleanup. - 85.210.185.207 12:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference is that people have actually written about bullet time and that doesn't appear to be the case here. Also notability is not what is in question, just that the topic can ever be adequately sourced. Recury 14:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I realise this, but I don't necessarily believe it to be the case. Seeing as we can agree on its notability, the correct course of action would be to search out articles, websites, commentaries, etc. that discuss the Gun Kata technique and base the article around them, rather than editors resorting to original research (which is obviously how the current article has been constructed).  If there's still issues with original research after this approach has been taken then there'd be a more substantial case for deletion of the article. - 85.210.185.207 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did look and couldn't find anything reliable, which is why I put it up for deletion. There certainly could be something out there, but the burden is on you guys to find it, not me to prove it doesn't exist. If I had found something, of course I would have tried to improve the article instead of putting it up for deletion. Recury 23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "the burden is on you guys to find it, not me to prove it doesn't exist" True, but you still can't delete it unless that's the overriding consensus - currently consensus seems to dictate the opposite, and that the article should remain. I didn't write this article and have no real investment in it, so I doubt I'll be going to great lengths to search out sources myself (it's worth noting that sources aren't limited simply to the Internet).  Seeing as it seems as though the article isn't going to be deleted, your best bet for improving it would be to highlight the specific issues on the talk page and add requests for citations where necessary. - 85.210.185.207 16:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can still get deleted even without consensus. It happens pretty often actually, especially in cases like this. Here is one example. 11 keep votes and one "weak delete" but because there are no reliable sources it gets deleted. Recury 17:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly Keep- This is ridiculous. Whoever 'checked and didn't find anything' didn't check the movie. As someone else pointed out from the source guidlines: "Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically." So here's some common sense. It is a logical fallacy for a 3rd party to be considered reliable on a fictional concept. Flat out impossible. They're either reiterating information gained from the author/authors, fabricating information, or they're making speculation, all of which are irrelevant. This means that only the creator/creators of the concept can be considered reliable sources, making the movies of their creation reliable sources as well. There is a quote on the Techniques page taken directly from the movie. This alone satisfies WP:V enough to keep the article up, even if it needs revision. Looking for a more reliable source on a fictional technique than a fictional master of said fictional technique is rather redundant. 90% of the Techniques section is a direct description of Gun Kata scenes in the movie. There is no reason to remove this article. --X Kolchak X 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR. The relevant part here is: "Any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." This isn't "applying it robotically," whatever that means; the policy specifically forbids it. Recury 14:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR again, as well as WP:RS. Gun Kata is a fictional martial art from the movies Equilibrium and Ultraviolet.  Under the cited policies, these movies are primary sources -- "artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs" (emphasis added).  Secondary sources are generally preferred, but primary sources can be used, especially if secondary sources are unavailable.  You don't need to find a secondary source to say that Luke Skywalker lived on Tatooine at the beginning of Star Wars Episode IV, because it's right in the movie.  The real issue here is not verifiability or original research, it's notability.  At one point I was going to suggest merging the content into the article on Equilibrium, per WP:FICT, but Gun Kata spans multiple movies.  Maybe the entry in List of fictional martial arts is sufficient. PubliusFL 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue as far as deletion/keeping is concerned is verifiability. "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It doesn't. Merging is another issue. The article on Equilibrium already has a section on gun kata and like you say the list of fictional martial arts has an entry on it, so I don't think merging anything anywhere is really necessary. The author has alerady made sure there is as much discussion of the topic in as many different articles as he or she could. Recury 18:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What is Wikipedia's policy on interviews, production notes & DVD commentery? Much of what is stated in the acticle does have "published" "sourced" "third party" material. There is even more out there than what I am posting below. (JenGe 20:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
 * The idea behind Gun Kata [which is the style of martial arts developed for the movie] was taken from true martial art concepts in that if one could learn the Gun Kata to it's fullest potential defending yourself in any situation could and would be realised. As opposed to traditional weaponry, such as we used in the sword sequences, guns were used in a similar martial arts manner. They were used as extensions of ourselves, which is the concept within the martial arts of all weapons. When learning the use of any weapon within the martial arts, it is taught in the same manner as hand to hand fighting skills. Whether it be a sword, bo staff, escrima sticks, tonfa's or any other weapon they, or it, become extensions of your body and therefore manipulated in the same fluid natural way we would use our hands, elbows, feet, knees, etc. The choreography of all the action was based completely on true concepts of traditional martial arts. The Gun Kata and afterwards the use of that training within the film brought weapons training to a new level which has never been seen before Equilibrium. http://www.sci-fi-online.50megs.com/Interview/03-08-29_JimVickers.htm
 * The film also presents an entirely original fighting art: the Gun-Kata, a fast and furious combination of Western fire-power with Eastern discipline of the body. Says Wimmer: "Hong Kong action movies brought out the idea that if a man has two hands, he can shoot two guns but that's as far as they took it. I wondered: Have we really hit the envelope for gun-play or is there somewhere new it could go? To me, combining the gun with martial arts was a natural. No one has ever used a gun before in a Kata form but it becomes the perfect extension of the body and can be used in ways not usually seen. http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/535/notes.pdf
 * The gun kata. Ok. So, I invented the gun kata in my yard, basically. After I would make sure that my family was out of the house and my neighbors weren't looking over the fence and I would, I developed it in the grass behind my house. And I remember thinking, "Wow, y'know am I crazy?" "Do I actually have the balls to hang a movie on this concept which may not work at all? Which may fail completely and if it fails the movie itself will fail? - DVD Commentary, http://www.equilibriumfans.com/commentarya7.htm


 * The first link is a fansite, which isn't considered reliable. The second one (correct me if I'm wrong) looks like a press release, which isn't independent. DVD commentaries are made by the people involved in the film, so they wouldn't be independent either. (I just want to emphasize again that I think these sources are OK for sourcing info in articles. The "mutiple published, reliable, indepedent, third-party" thing only has to do with whether we should have an article on the subject or not. These sources should definitely be introduced into the Equilibrium article, IMO.) Recury 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the first one is not a "fansite". Here is another interview quote which also is not a fan page. JenGe 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * sfd: The combat sequences in Equilibrium are a distinctive form commonly referred to as "gun-kata". What's the origin of gun-kata? (And who coined that term?)
 * KW: I coined the term in the context of the film - DuPont [the spokesman for the elusive dictator known as "Father"] first mentions it. I just made the thing up in my yard because I didn't want to waste my time making the film if I couldn't bring something new to it and something that excited me. http://www.scifidimensions.com/May03/kurtwimmer.htm


 * It is at 50megs.com, a free hosting provider. It's no better than having an article at Geocities. Those kind of sites are self-published, not published and have no editorial oversight. I don't know about this site, but it only mentions it in passing anyways. Recury 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So what's your excuse for "scifidimensions"? Here is another one for you to work on...
 * "Kurt envisioned gun fighting at a different level," Smith elaborates. "First you have the Wild West, then the Shaolin Monks who spent years developing their movements. So the gun kata was derived from over 200 years of watching gun fights, and the kind of evolution of anticipating a gunfighter's move and that these characters in EQUILIBRIUM were of the highest level.
 * So yes, we see similar gun ideas in ULTRAVIOLET. But the key was to choreograph fights for Milla's strengths and character and not what I thought would be cool http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=648
 * There are also published articles from Empire but I'm sure you'll discount that as well since the scan is on a "fansite." http://equilibriumfans.com/empirearticlegunkata.jpg (JenGe 21:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Here is another "print" article scan for you to explain away... http://equilibriumfans.com/UV-CHUDArticle.jpg. (JenGe 23:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
 * The article from Empire Magazine would be a great source, if you can identify what issue it came from. Especially since it's a print article that focuses on the martial art.  The Kung Fu Magazine article seems like a good reference, too.  I didn't see more than a brief mention of gun kata in the last article, but it could still be useful. PubliusFL 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the entire Empire issue. It is April 2003, p.32. The last article mentions "gunkata" as a "gun based martial art" and then continues with that wording and "gun action" in explaining the action for both Equilibrium & UltraViolet. This really is to point out the original comment by Recury, Original research. No reliable sources on the topic, is in error. There are plenty of sources. (JenGe 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
 * I suspected there were. Nice work backing it up.  I would strongly encourage you to add these references to the article.  The Movie Insider article, in particular, is a perfect reference for a paragraph that was just deleted from Gun Kata, about the difference in style between gun kata in Equilibrium (hard, karate-like) and Ultraviolet (soft, wu shu-like). PubliusFL 01:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing about WP:V that stipulates that DVD audio commentaries aren't acceptable sources. There's certain criteria that has to be met obviously (e.g. not unduly self-serving) but using them as sources is fine, and is commonplace in fact.  Again, no blanket rules barring fan sites either, whether or not a particular fan site is an acceptable source is open to debate.  A little common sense and less pedantic policy gaming wouldn't go amis here. - 81.179.97.57 02:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs more sourcesSlideAndSlip 21:19, 13 February 2007 (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.