Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Molnar


 * 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.  Daniel  04:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe Molnar

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable Kung Fu instructor. While sources have been provided, none of them seem to me to be independent of the subject Mattinbgn\talk 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The opinion above has probably a lot to do with geography and lack of understanding of the diverse variety of Wing Chun organisations and lineages. Independent sources are difficult to attain in Kung Fu simply because of the non literary and political history of the subject concerned. Joe Molnar is notable in Australia and has made a significant contribution to Kung Fu. Just type Wing Chun into Google and his site is on the first page (www.knoxwingchun.com) and has been for many years showing in part his popularity and contribution to the art! If Joe Molnar is removed than most other Wing Chun instructors listed and written about on Wikipedia should also be removed as many others also could easily be placed in the same boat - see Ian Protheroe for lack of independent sources. In my opinion this Joe Molnar article should be expanded, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.67.29 (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails to meet WP:BIO. Twenty Years 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE nonnotable... being the first link on GOOGLE is not proof of any notability.Balloonman 07:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In reply to User:144.139.67.29, I don't claim to know anything about Wing Chun. That is why we at Wikipedia rely on policies such as Verifiability and Reliable sources.  If the article cannot be independently verified, as you claim, then the article does not belong on Wikipedia.  As for your argument citing Ian Protheroe, WP:WAX applies, but if you feel the article does not meet the above policies,then feel free to nominate it for deletion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:25, 10 November 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.