Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ki-ken-tai-ichi


 * 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ki-ken-tai-ichi

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

Delete fails WP:N.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In Japanese, should be "気剣體一致" (kikentai icchi). In a google search, term appears in the title of books, for example, but I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to go about writing an article for it. cab (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'd say this almost fall under speedy G1; no context --Nate1481(t/c) 10:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it has context: "in Budo/Martial". It would help if the following word "Arts" hadn't been omitted though. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The Japanese Wikipedia has two hits for "気剣体一致" (kikentai itchi): Tetsuzan Kuroda 黒田鉄山 (a martial artist) and Yutaka Kase 加瀬豊 (CEO of a company). Fg2 (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (speedy); there's just nothing there, including no assertion of notability. JJL (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Shame because it could be interesting if developed, but there isn't much to work with. No sign of notability and no references. J Readings (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete in agreement with the good reasons above; nn, little content, unreferenced. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Slogan has little recognition. Article is so short that it can be created again if more information comes to light. Fg2 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 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.