Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissaki-Kai Karate (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Deryck C. 14:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Kissaki-Kai Karate
AfDs for this article:
 * Articles for deletion/Kissaki Kai Karate
 * Articles for deletion/Kissaki-Kai Karate (2nd nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This page was previously deleted after AfD debate (Articles for deletion/Kissaki Kai Karate). The recreation is substantially the same with the same issue with regard to notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Selective merge to Shotokan or other appropriate subject, per WP:GNG. Some sources:, (within the current article),  (WP:SPS). -- Trevj (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is relative to a specific Martial art that is not similar to Shotokan, The style of Kissaki Kai is unique and gets back to the "grass roots" of Karate as it was in Okinawa before Funakoshi took it to Japan and developed Shotokan. This article needs to stay. --208.185.214.4 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Different style of Karate - The Kissaki Page needs to stay to show the progression of Karate and the different types, as Kissaki is as different from Shotokan as Wado Ryu and others are. This wiki page acts as a gateway for Martial artists to see the developments and returns to original techniques and applications that have been diluted and lost over time — Preceding unsigned comment added by KissakiRobin (talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added ISBN book numbers to be able to verify that Kissaki Kai Karate is in fact a legitimate art and different from Shotokan and others, All external web links have been verified and the statements there from legitimate sources prove that Kissaki is in fact a legitimate standalone Martial art in its own right. --KissakiRobin (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - No indication that this martial art is notable. If there's really no change since the previous AfD it should have put speedied, but that's irrelevant now. This style clearly states it is not shotokan, so merging it isn't correct. The fact that the organization's home page lists only 17 schools that teach it does not show the notability required in WP:MANOTE. Those "Reliable verifiable secondary references of Kissaki-Kai" are predominantly books by Vince Morris, the style's creator--those are hardly independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The mandate that is listed for notability states Short history: created in last 5–10 years (less than 2 years and significant counter arguments would be needed but remember notability is not inherited) Kissaki has been in existence since 1993 which is 19 years so it is not reasonable to delete based on this as it exceed criteria Single/few schools that teach the art Kissaki has 17 schools thy teach this, and single or a few would insinuate 1 or 3, so it also exceeds this criteria and should not be deleted based on this Neither of these is conclusive but they are a reason to look more closely. As the above states these are also not conclusive reasons as Kissaki clearly meets and exceeds these criteria. -- KissakiRobin (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2012
 * These were extreme examples for reasons to delete not reasons to keep. 17 associated dojos is not really that significant nor is a 20 year history. Has the group made an impact beyond internal publications - new stories, etc. It would help to determine notability if the article were properly referenced with in-line citation. Most of the independent references mention Kissaki-Kai and Vince in passing only. Existence alone does not confer notability. The article reads like a web page. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This does seem to me that there is no openness towards Kissaki-Kai and the references stated clearly define the direction and differences that Kissaki Kai Karate is moving in.. Please have an open mind when reviewing this and as this page is related to Martial Artists and Karateka please look at the page with the opinion on these mind sets! --KissakiRobin (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not about openness, it is about notability and significant coverage in independent references. I doubt any of the editors have anything against Kissaki Kai as an art, but existing does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree and believe that Kissaki-Kai Karate is in fact very notable. Shotokan for example took many years before it became worldwide notable, Kissaki is almost 20 years old but needs tools like Wikipedia to promote notability in an honest independent forum to supplement the reviews, articles and the arts own website. --KissakiRobin (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote your martial art. Papaursa (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The martial art is self promoted and proven, the intention was to improve notability through the audience of Wikipedia, this martial art has been promoted on Wikipedia in Belgium for many years, as per the link. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissaki-kai. --KissakiRobin (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did some wikification but it needs more - specifically in line references to show where 3rd party references talk about the style. Just removing tags is not the answer.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete There's nothing in the article (or the above comments) that shows this meets the notability requirements listed at WP:MANOTE. The lack of significant independent coverage also fails to support the claim of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of independent articles listed above including a wiki article in Belgium. The website for Kissaki also lists a lot of independent sources. --KissakiRobin (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This article looks very open and factual about a modern style of karate that stems from Okinawan roots and is expanding. I believe as an outsider this a good source of information and should not be deleted. Format of the article should be improved but not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.210.178 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're a new editor and entitled to your opinion, but the fact that you added a Facebook link to a Kissaki Kai school in New Jersey to the main article says you're not a neutral party. You don't need to be neutral, but COIs are worth pointing out. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The section was listed for external links so I saw the Facebook link on the Kissaki web page and wanted to add my contribution, hence the fact I added the additional external link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.210.178 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The topic does not meet WP:GNG. Somewhat significant coverage: Courier-Post July 15, 2008; Other coverage: Courier-Post April 25, 2000 (an obituary), Evening Gazette November 15, 2010. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:46, 19 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.