Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koei-Kan


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Koei-Kan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a non-notable martial art. My search didn't find significant independent coverage. Most coverage was not independent and the other coverage seems to just be a passing mention. Jakejr (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Weak keep - The topic appears to meet WP:GNG, although not by a gigantic margin per sources available via internet searches. Source examples include the two book sources listed in the article, along with:, , . Shorter articles include , , . Also, here's some mentions, (although these following sources don't serve to establish topic notability per Wikipedia's standards): , , . Perhaps further Japanese reliable sources are available about this topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the articles are significant coverage about this art. The fact that Chuck Liddell once practiced this art does not make it notable nor does an article on some teenagers getting their black belt nor do the passing mentions in the other articles. Getting a brief mention in a book that attempts to list every martial art in the world also doesn't do it. Jakejr (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't appear notable. The only sources given are a passing mention in a martial arts encyclopedia and a book by an instructor.  Neither of these show significant independent coverage.  The other sources I found are basically for various schools of this art, so they also are not independent. Papaursa (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - While a Google News search found some promising results, unfortunately, none of them appeared to be significant coverage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:55, 25 August 2013 (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.