Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jikyo ryu


 * 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Jikyo ryu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Although Jikyō-ryu may not be well-known, it is still taught in Japan today and information is available on its history. It is a separate style from the Mugai-ryu page on which it was first described on Wikipedia and I think it makes sense to give it its own page to describe its history in more detail. It is confusing to simply embed it within the page of another style when it's a totally different style. I practice both styles and trying to figure out what's what or where they come from using my somewhat limited Japanese skills has been challenging. I don't know if we want to call the article a stub or whatever, but I do think it should be it's own article. Anyway that's my 2C. Kazrian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The article has no sources and my own search didn't turn find the significant coverage I believe is needed to meet WP:GNG. Merely existing is insufficient to meet WP's notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @Papaursa - The sources are in Japanese, there doesn't seem to be much in English. Kazrian (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If they show significant and independent coverage, it would help to list them. If they're not both of those things, then I see no reason for the article to remain. Papaursa (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:15, 2 November 2017 (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.