Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grand Masters of Taekwondo


 * 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   no consensus. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Grand Masters of Taekwondo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated persons; in this case, people who have attained a certain rank, or who hold (or claim) the Grandmaster title, in a martial art. This article had previously been proposed for deletion on 18 July 2009 by an anonymous contributor; that proposal was countered due to lack of a reason for deletion. Janggeom (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. – Janggeom (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- This is not a "loose" association at all: it's a fairly precise and relevant one. Compare with, say, List of chess grandmasters. Reyk  YO!  23:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- however, it probably needs to renamed to reflect the fact that only 9th Dan practitioners are listed. The term Grand Master apparently refers to 6th - 9th Dan, which would include thousands and thousands of people. Reyk  YO!  00:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I understand your reasoning, but the list of Chess grandmasters is not a good comparison. The criterion for inclusion in that list is very specific and easily verified: award of the "Grandmaster" title by FIDE. In the domain of Tae Kwon-Do (or Taekwon-Do or Taekwondo), there are many organisations that award Dan rankings, and standards vary between them. Indeed, not every organisation even has 9th Dan as the highest rank, as the article notes. There are also political influences at work; take, for example, Choi Hong Hi—proclaimed as the Founder of Taekwon-Do and ranked 9th Dan by some of the major groups (ITF), and not even mentioned by, or holding any rank in, other major groups (WTF). "Grandmaster of Tae Kwon-Do" or "9th Dan in Tae Kwon-Do" only makes sense in the context of a specific organisation or set of standards—which do not exist for Tae Kwon-Do as a whole in the same way that they might do for Chess. I hope these comments give some background on the reasons for nominating the article for deletion. Janggeom (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- surely this is a matter for cleanup and clarification rather than deletion. Perhaps the list could be modified to include several lists to account for people who have been awarded by Grand Master status by the important federations. Reyk  YO!  08:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would the content then not be better placed in the articles on those organisations? Janggeom (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. On further thought, I suppose the article could be cleaned up rather than be deleted, but it would certainly need to be renamed (e.g., "List of Kukkiwon grandmasters of taekwondo"). In this case, some content would need to be moved elsewhere. Janggeom (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to article on Kukkiwon since this article deals only with martial artists at a certain level recoginized by this specific organization. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Non-Kukkiwon Dan holders are listed in the article (H. H. Choi and others), and were from the beginning (H. U. Lee, C. E. Sereff). The text on Kukkiwon and South Korean government recognition was added later. Janggeom (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the correction. I don't do tae kwon do and that's not how I read the article.  If it's supposed to cover all TKD organizations the list is likely inadequate (and probably impossible to keep accurate and up-to-date).  In that case I would change my vote to Delete.  If the authors just want to focus on the Kukkiwon, then I'll stick with my merge vote.  Either way I don't think it should be a stand-alone article.  I think any list of grandmasters should be in the article of the certifying organization (or omitted altogether). There's too much variability in the standards of martial arts organizations to compare things indiscriminately.  For example, a 5th dan in one style may well not confer the same amount of expertise as a 5th dan in another style. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Following one of Reyk's comments above, I suppose the article could be renamed and trimmed down to focus on Kukkiwon grandmasters. The article would then be of similar scope, in principle, to the list of Chess grandmasters (FIDE). I believe the article under discussion was originally meant to cover all of Tae Kwon-Do, and the article title certainly implies that. Janggeom (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. This is a list based on objective criteria.  It appears to be limited to ITF and WTF, mostly WTF, although that is not expressly set out.  That criterion should be made express in the article.  TJRC (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to list of level 8 and 9 dan taekwondo masters 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/Categorize/Merge As a matter of taste, I prefer to mark the people who notable enough to have an article with a category. Those without an article could be merged as a section into ITF, WTF, Kukkiwon or whatever entity granted them rank. jmcw (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/Categorize/Merge Per Jmcw37. Merging to the org they are a grandmaster of sounds like a good plan and categorise the articles of individuals where they exist, as it stands it will attract people to add self-certified grandmasters with no sources and become useless. --Natet/c 08:44, 16 February 2010 (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.