Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kokondō


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Kokondō

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an article about a relatively new martial art that lacks significant independent sources. My search did not find good sources to show this art passes WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —Astudent0 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with nom. I found no independent reliable sources for this martial art.  It doesn't seem to be widespread or notable. Papaursa (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 13:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Week Keep. The article does suffer from a lack of reliable sources, yes.  I'm convinced that these sources must exist, as the sources we do have imply that this martial art has existed for at least a few decades and is taught in multiple locations in the US.  It may be best to remove anything without a clear, external source and reduce the page to a stub, but I believe it passes WP:MANOTE.  The sources may just exist beyond a simple Google search. Several Times (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The article lacks reliable sources and the art fails to show notability. It's not widespread (since the article says the dojos are clustered near South Windsor, Conn.), it's not been the subject of meaningful coverage, and there's no indication of students having notable competitive successes.  Instead it seems to be more of a relatively recent splinter (which is a criteria for deletion).  If significant coverage from independent and reliable sources exists I couldn't find it and it hasn't  been posted in the 2+ years since the article was tagged for lacking independent sources. Jakejr (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not appear notable. A search for sources has revealed a few passing mentions in Black Belt, but nothing substantial so far. The article itself does not provide any indication that the subject is noteworthy amongst the host of other martial art schools in existence. Janggeom (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2011 (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.