Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krav Maga Worldwide


 * 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. After discussing with Jerry. This has been up for long enough, and there's very little support for keeping the article. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Krav Maga Worldwide

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POV, Advertising, Censorship, Conflict of Interest, Threats. Major contributor is subject of article; Major contributor removes cited information conflicting with his/her point of view with no justification. Adbaculum (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - A minor point. Yes, the author is tied up in this article. However, it has several references, which all check out, and the material you are trying to repeatedly add is both completely unreferenced, violates BLP, and are based on a very un-NPOV way of looking at the material -- and you are involved with this too. AfD is not where you go to clean up articles. It needs cleanup, not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logical Premise (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you still have those references handy, could you fill in some of the details on them in the article--title, author(s), page number(s) (for print references) or a link (for online references)? As it is, just the periodical title and month isn't really a full citation--the complete information would make it easier for other people who wanted to verify the references. Chuck (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If having refernces to USPTO trademark application numbers were the point of dispute I do not think outright deleting the section in dispute would be appropriate (I am uncertain how to properly cite a US trademark application). I am not sure clean-up is possible considering the obvious hostility of the author/subject of this article and the nature of it which is heavily nn.    Also note the author's efforts to manipulate the Krav Maga topic to eliminate references to competing organizations and add his/her own.  Also note the use of promotional outside links against Wikipedia standard of using links.  It is my belief Author is using Wikipedia as a marketing channel which is not part of it's intended function. Adbaculum (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Trivial mentions, COI fluff. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Little or no context for the notability or significance of the subject. COI and reads like an advertisement.  Wikipedia is not your web host.  --Kraftlos (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Conditional Delete I made a pass at resolving the COI and advert issues, but unless the references are cleaned up and clarified so they can be checked, there's not much more to do with it. The only one I can find, which is here  does not mention the company at all, and indeed predates its claimed founding by a year. gnfnrf (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The current, edited version of the article makes the remarkable claim that the US military contracts out the training of special forces in martial arts to this business.  If true, this would make a fairly convincing case for notability.  But that's the sort of double-take claim that needs more specific pinpoint references than what's given. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE Pardon my ignorance at procedure here at Wiki. Heres a link to a scanned recent letter from the Department of the Air force. http://focusselfdefense.com/sites/default/files/images/AFOSI-AST%20Letter%20of%20Commendation%20(small).jpg We have many such letters of appreciation please let me know if I can supply you with any more information. I won’t be adding anymore content to the page and I have only attempted to remove what we consider vandalism by rival factions. This information might also be of note http://www.cafi.us/post.htm regarding our work with law enforcement. The California Association of Force Instructors announced its using KMW to teach is 80hr certified Defensive Tactics course. Thank you for your efforts they are appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmwwinc (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To best support the inclusion of the article, it should have multiple sources to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. In order to verify that the coverage is non-trivial, your references should be to the specific claims that the source supports, and should be detailed enough that someone else can use the information to look up the source.  Currently, the article has a number of sources lumped at the end, but it isn't clear what you think those sources say, and the references to them are too vague to easily check.  Replacing those sources with clearly defined ones (including dates and page numbers in some standard style) would be a good start.  See WP:References for good starting guidelines. gnfnrf (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for your comments and suggestions. However as an employee of KMW I really did not wish to write or edit this article any further based on some of the above comments stating I was biased. I think it would be best that a non partial individual utilize the existing material in order to sustain credibility to the content. Am I incorrect in assuming this wouldn’t be the best course of action? KMWWinc (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is very true. In general, people with a vested interest in the article subject should not edit that article, per WP:COI.  However, what I am asking is not to change the content of the article, but to clarify the references.  If you aren't comfortable editing the article, then just specifying the reference material in more detail on the talk page might help. gnfnrf (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and Krav Maga while we are at it. Non-notable spam articles without reliable 3rd party sourcing which cover the subject in a significant manner. It isn't about the number of references but, about the quality and both articles fail on that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2008 (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.