Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luta livre esportiva


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Luta livre esportiva

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unsourced article about part of a martial arts system that gives no indication of being notable. The article on the entire system was already removed. Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which "article on the entire system" removed and when? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on Luta Livre Vale Tudo. At least I think this was a subset of that one. Papaursa (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is a misunderstanding. Luta livra redirects to this article.  Luta livre Vale Tudo was deleted.   Vale tudo still exists.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have misunderstood about the other luta livra article, but I still don't see notability or sources for this one. Papaursa (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally I agree - the whole nomenclature and what is different or notable is really confusing. I am inclined to think they are all the same - but for the moment I am going to sit on the fence with regard to Keep or Delete.  That may change.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * weak keep Google search shows thousands of hits, i.e., the term does exist as a sports category recognized in Brazil. It requires an effort to filter out "admissible" references amonmg blogposts and wrestling school adverts. But they do exist:, , , , , , Staszek Lem (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree there's a lot of ghits, but I couldn't find significant independent coverage. I don't think that the links given above meet that criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The links given above are specifically selected to be independent. "Significant" is a matter of opinion. "A lot of ghits" (from different sources) means it is visible. Unfortunately it seems that the article authors don't care to fix it, and I know not enough Portuguese to do it for them. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GHITS. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah, I know; but in my 'weak keep' vote I listed some of them which may indicate notability. Anyway, since still nobody cares to improve the page, I don't care if it will go. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The article lacks any sources to support claims of notability. Like previous editors, my search didn't turn up independent sources. Jakejr (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for something that has existed since around 1950, it goes gets a minor coverage, and not much in mainstream sources. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 1 August 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.