Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kichun


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Kichun

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable - not even sure it exists Peter Rehse (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  Peter Rehse (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete At the moment I can't even find evidence that it exists. If someone can provide links or references that mention it at all, then we can take a further look, but right now, I see no option other than to delete. (The creator and main contributor to this page has done no other significant editing, and hasn't been around since 2010, which suggests it might be advertising or self-promotion, but apologies if it isn't.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * delete all I could find is a place called this. LibStar (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article's first sentence strongly suggests that reliable sources will be non-existent or difficult to find ("[the] origins of [this] martial art being widely unknown as it was passed from one wandering master to another"). There are no sources provided in the Haidong Gumdo article to support the subject being one of Haidong Gumdo's ancestors. A brief search for sources shows that "Kichun" is widely used (e.g., as a personal name). Without assistance from a contributor knowledgeable about this art, the information in the article will be very difficult to verify. Janggeom (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Searches in English are not productive.  Searches in Korean for the terms provided in the article (this search or Google's alternate spelling/spacing suggestion) are nearly exclusively blogs and open-access content hosts.  I am unable to evaluate the reliability of this site but I am also dubious as to whether the content supports the article regardless. News and book searches in Korean fare no better than in English. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2012 (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.