Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinney Karate (School)


 * 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   merge to Michael Kinney (martial artist). If Articles for deletion/Michael Kinney (Kinney Karate) is closed as "delete", then this article can be deleted too. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Kinney Karate
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:ADVERT This article reads like an advertisement that would take a significant rewrite, WP:GNG I couldn't find any significant mentions despite the long list of apparent references. Also appears to be written by a WP:COI. heather walls (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is really hard to make the call here with respect to notability since it is so badly written. Both the Kinney articles are essentially copies of themselves - one has to be deleted.  Both need to be wikified and trimmed of all the puffery.  The COI is obvious.  At the very least it should be returned to user space until the obvious problems are sorted out.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Both of the Michael Kinney articles (one on him, one on his school) are nearly identical. They have no citations in the article and are full of vague, unsubstantiated claims (e.g., trained "uncountable number of black belt instructors" and "hundreds of champions").  There are lots of peacock terms and nothing that is reliably sourced that shows he meets WP:MANOTE.  His rank is insufficient to show notability and working "alongside many of the greatest martial artists" is WP:NOTINHERITED. These articles are autobiographic and appear to be more like advertisements then encyclopedia articles. Papaursa (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC

Thank you for the constructive comments. It is appreciated. I never intended for this article to be listed as a 'school.' My error in making this live is that I was trying to understand how searches of names appear. This is been an ongoing effort since it is very difficult to understand how the codes work. Please understand that references are being worked on in the main article "Michael Kinney (Martial Artist) so that they can be linked to the corresponding parts in the article. I am also sorry that it sounds like an "advertisement."  I will fix that, shorten the article, and sift through more of the content to make it adheres to rules for more encyclopedia sounding content.  I have spent hours reading, working in the sandbox, and working to understand how all of this works and am sorry for my novice or 'badly written' approach.  I will fix 'peacock' and 'vague' terms, I would never want that to be an issue.  I am sure everyone was a 'novice' at this at one point or another. All I can say is that this whole process is incredibly complicated  I will try to understand how to get more editorial help if someone will explain to me how to access those groups (I tried to get help but couldn't seem to access these user and talk groups). Proof is easily obtained on the references but the article does need to be better organized. I will do work to fix the issues of complaint. I have no problem 'deleting' the 'school' story. However the main story is a matter of a rewrite and revisions of the references to comply with standards. I want to learn how to submit information to Wikipedia, I will continue to work on the reference coding and writing a more presentable article following the above comments of other users/editors.


 * Comment It appears that the original author agrees to delete this article and requests time to work on the other.  My feeling is that we should allow this - the question of notability was hard to determine but with a little work it could be clearer.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge Substantial improvement but I still feel that both articles essentially duplicate each other.  Merge this article into Michael Kinney (martial artist).Peter Rehse (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Moved to Kinney Karate as requested by original author - see the article's talk page.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - unfortunately that was a cut-and-paste move and will need to be fixed by an administrator. I have added the appropriate template to the article.--ukexpat (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the cut-and-paste move. Peter - you needed to move the article using the 'move' tab rather than cut and paste it, so that the edit history moves with it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I had a hard time deciding what to vote. The subject clearly doesn't merit its own article because there's nothing to show this school is notable on its own, so merging it into the similar article on the owner is reasonable.  However, I don't think the owner is notable either and why merge this into an article I think should be deleted.  So, if the Michael Kinney (martial artist) article is kept then this article should be merged into it.  Otherwise this article should be deleted. Mdtemp (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mdtemp, I corrected what I assume is a typo--I changed Kinner to Kinney. Papaursa (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Mdtemp's comment. As I voted above, I think it should be deleted, but if Michael Kinney is deemed notable then this article should be merged into that one.  I must admit I don't know why this discussion was extended when the author seemed to agree to its deletion in an earlier comment. Papaursa (talk) 19:43, 22 September 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.