Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katsudo


 * 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. On a strict vote count it would be a no consensus, but the complete lack of references from reliable sources means that it doesn't meet WP:V, and that's non-negotiable. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Katsudo

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

Non-notable recently created martial art; more ghits seem to be for the similarly named art derived instead from American Kenpo and for non-martial arts usages of the term. JJL (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.   —JJL (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep; although it's almost never a good idea to base an AfD or an AfD vote solely on the way an article is written, the article is written very well (except it may be slightly tipping towards promotional); I would personally rate the article with a start/low, and there is potentially reliable information about the martial art. It could become even more notable in the future, and if this is deleted, then the future article might not be as well written. Besides, I think this does meet WP:N and WP:V, and I don't see a screaming demand to delete the article, so why delete it? GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 19:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have some serious doubts about the current references meeting WP:V. They don't seem to be independent coverage.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per nom: if information is added that places it better in the martial arts world, I might flip to keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand/improve article. I think that the article can be improved so let the editors work on it.  It is certainly not such a bad article that it should be deleted.  Notability is there in my eyes for a stub article, or a start article.  If it gets promotional in nature I'd change my mind in a flash, though.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no assertation of notability, Newly created MA and with no distinguishing features, and no evidence that it is widespread. The original sounded distinctly like an advert you may find this useful: WikiProject Martial arts/Notability --Nate1481(t/c) 09:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Nate. Complete lack of references to the style. jmcw (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2008 (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.