Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han Moo Do


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  06:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Han Moo Do

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This art may exist, but I believe it fails WP:N. The article cites no sources at all, let alone WP:RS. A major contributor to the article also appears to have a WP:COI, which has being discussed seperately at the WP:COI/N. Most ghits are non-reliable sources. Gnews has 5 hits, but as they are in Finnish, I can't really verify them. In any case, 5 isn't a lot. There is also confusion during google searches with the art of Han Mu Do. In sum, this appears to be a style invented by a single instructor that hasn't had any notable coverage on it's own. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This also appears to fail the specific martial arts project notability standards WP:MANOTE Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect Keep  to Han Mu Do per below; I think I was mislead by varying transliterations reasonably well-known Korean system with over 8K ghits . JJL (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * JJL, that might be Han Mu Do, which is a different art. This one has lots of hits on unreliable sources, but it is korean "style", founded in Finland. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Han Moo Do and Han Mu Do are seperate arts. There was some discussion on the talk page about the difference and the article has a "not to be confused with Han Mu Do" tag at the top. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know enough about Korean transliteration to know what's right, but per a gsearch the distinction does seem to be consistent. OTOH, it's easy for me to imagine someone searching for Han Mu Do using Han Moo Do as a search term, so I'm still inclined to say rd and add an explanatory note there if need be. JJL (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Comment The subject of this article has a completely different "founder" (Young Suk (Yoon Soon Hwang) ) than the man who was the "founder" of Han Mu Do (He-Young Kimm)-- we can safely conclude that these are different martial arts groups that do not consider themselves to be related to one another.OfficeGirl (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I concur, but if this one is not found to be notable then I think a redirect and brief explanation at the Han Mu Do article is sensible to explain just that fact. Are Moo and Mu representations of distinct characters, or are they varying transliterations of the same Korean character? JJL (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete No notability whatsoever. Completely fails WP:MANOTEOfficeGirl (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Google Books search reveals a couple of English language hits, including a description in Moo: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases (Icon Group International, Inc., 2008), p. 54. There are also Finnish language sources available, including a detailed article in Karjalan Maa magazine and a short description in this article from Etelä-Suomen Sanomat. This is definitely a notable martial art in Finland, and it's also spreading to other Nordic countries. Jafeluv (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A single paragraph mention in a websters book is notable? As this is the English Wikipedia, English language sources are preferable as stated in WP:NONENG. I have no clue what the articles say. Are they about the actual art (the topic of the article) or about the school and practitioners (which is not the topic)? Presuming that both of them are actually about the art itself, I'm not sold that an article and a half amount to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a google translation of the page to get some idea on what it says. It's mostly general information about the art and its history, and some information on the local club. I know the Google translation isn't actually English, but I hope it gives you some impression :) Jafeluv (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I read it and I'm still not sold. Even the article states 800 practitioners in the entire country. If you look at WP:MANOTE, you can probably see why I don't find this too persuasive. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the 800 practioners figure is from February 2004. Jafeluv (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True. But that was also nearly 7 years into the arts existence too. The fact that we're not seeing another article of similar length in the following 5 years might make one question the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can find more sources. The Finnish Wikipedia has had an article on the subject since 2005, but the only sources it uses are from Han Moo Do organizations themselves... Of course, notability on a national level doesn't necessarily imply international notability (is that what's required here?), but I'm not convinced this is non-notable until I dig a little deeper. I'll be back. Jafeluv (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's see. WP:NONENG says that "English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available." Here, we have one English language source with exactly 9 lines of text (see Webster's Quotations, above), but it can be used to cite simple facts like what Han Moo Do is, who started it, where and when, and which part of the world it's practiced. I don't know if the trivia in the Guinness Book of Records is notable. The Finnish language sources include and  (the latter is an article from Vieskalainen magazine that contains some general information and then goes on to describe the local HMD school; translation here). That's all I could found find that's reasonably detailed about the art, then there are some news articles like "Kouvola won two medals from the HMD championship in Kouvolan sanomat and the Etelä-Suomen Sanomat article mentioned earlier that talks about a computer engineer and includes one paragraph about HMD as his hobby. Now let's see what WP:MANOTE says:

Criteria supporting notability


 * 1) Subject of an independent article/documentary;- Sole or majority subject in the media, either a news article of a TV program, Be careful with 'niche' publications a, check they are not related to the school teaching it, if is an internal magazine with an annual issue it probably isn't notable, but a style big enough to produce a widely distributed monthly magazine may well be notable, but sourcing from it should be treated as with all primary sources. — Check. Subject of two rather detailed news articles, although not in English.
 * 2) A Long externally verifiable history (i.e. secondary sources, not the club's website that says it has existed since 10,000BC...) — Check. The Karjalan Maa article mentions that the art was founded in 1989. That's not exactly 10,000 BC, but the essay doesn't define what counts as a "long" history. I say 20 years is good enough, and that's externally verifiable. Feel free to disagree.
 * 3) Multiple notable practitioners;- see Martial artist) — Nope.
 * 4) A Large number of students; - Try to be objective. Remember that there are over 6 billion people in the world. — Nope.
 * 5) Competitive successes in large inter-style tournaments;- For example UFC 1 — Nope.

Criteria supporting deletion


 * 1) Short history;- created in last 5-10 years (Less than 2 years and significant counter arguments would be needed but remember Notability is not inherited) — Nope.
 * 2) Single/few schools that teach the art — Nope. Every major city in Finland has a HMD school, and the sport is practiced in Sweden, Norway and Denmark as well.

For these reasons, I stick to keep. Jafeluv (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all cool, but I would like to point a couple of things out. I don't find a local newspaper article or two to be what we are looking for. That can be debated, it's just my way of looking at it. And I don't think that 20 years is a long history no matter how I look at it. I'll give you an example of an article I am toying with writing (if I quit being lazy). It has about the same length of history and same number of schools. But the style has 4 notable creators and the style has been the subject of lengthy articles in magazines like the Tae Kwon Do Times. So I am confident that it would be easily defended as notable without any great difficulty because of the notable practioners and the fact that is has been well documented by a nationally known source more than once. But like I said, it's all good. That's why we have these debates. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:03, 24 June 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.