Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakkō-ryū


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes  13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hakkō-ryū

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing to show this style meets the martial arts notability standards at WP:MANOTE and lacks the coverage needed to meet the GNG. The only sources are self-published and the Aikido Journal. Even if the Aikido Journal is a reliable source, the GNG is not met.Sandals1 (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Sandals1 (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems the no proper search has been performed as required per WP:BEFORE, and a look in Japanese Wiki reveals plenty of sources in Japanese. A quick search for books on the subject also give sources in English -  some of which are also listed in the article as sources. Should qualify under WP:GNG or indeed WP:MANOTE. Hzh (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles from this style's federation and books by people who teach the art do not constitute significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Can you point to coverage that actually satisfies WP:GNG?  Papaursa (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I only see one official book. I don't how you define independent, but only experts can write books on their expert subject, do you object to books written by scientists (or other academics) on the subject they specialised in or taught? If you did, you find that a large chunk of sources would need to be removed from Wikipedia as they are written by experts, and you end up with half-informed rubbish written by non-experts. Did you check the sources in Japanese as well? Hzh (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I don't read Japanese there would be little point in me looking at Japanese sources. However, I would point you to WP:GNG where it says ' "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.' I would say that eliminates teachers of Hakkō-ryū.  Scientists would not be considered independent of the school they teach at. Papaursa (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NONENG, non-English sources are permissible, whether you can read them or not is not relevant unless you have reason to dispute the sources. There are plenty of sources in the Japanese wiki, and you cannot dismiss the sources simply for not being able to read them. You'd also find that a lot of articles in fact require sources written by experts on their subject, e.g. in WP:MEDRS, reviews are preferred, and they can only be written by experts who understand their subjects well, which by your interpretation would not be permitted, therefore your understanding of "independent" is not what it is intended to mean. In any case, how did you know that the authors are teachers rather than people who knows their subject very well? Hzh (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I actually wrote? I didn't say non-English sources were unacceptable, I said I can't read them so why would I look at them.  Feel free to use them as long as you can say in English why the source shows notability.  Please note I talked about scientists and their school (not their field), which is correct analogy when talking about martial arts instructors. When the author is listed as a shihan, it's not rocket science to figure he's a martial arts teacher.  It's also worth mentioning that just because a subject is notable in another language's wiki does not mean it's automatically notable in the English WP. Papaursa (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is sourced, that is the point, especially when the nom noted that there is also the Aikido Journal in the English wiki. I only gave examples of books specifically on the subject, but there are in fact other English sources, e.g. Black Belt magazine -, and (all these from just a minute or two of Googling)  It is clear from the abundance of sources that WP:BEFORE had not been performed. Hzh (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The refs offered above check out in sufficient depth and quantity to satisfy gng. Those in the article are all primary or 404 and could be replaced to prevent a rerun of this afd in the future. Szzuk (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Very weak Keep The Black Belt magazine articles are OK, but only count as 1 source. The Aikiko Journal sources are a one paragraph overview of the art and an interview.  The mention in the book on "The Art of Arrests" says this art's use by law enforcement is "almost non-existent".  Altogether, these sources are not nothing but they also don't make this a slam-dunk case for notability.  While I think Hzh has overstated the coverage of this style, I don't believe it's an obvious delete candidate either.  At this time I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and hope the article gets improved sourcing. Papaursa (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is not determined by whether something is being used by the police, but by the sources about the subject. Hzh (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2018 (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.