Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAPMA


 * 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   keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

NAPMA

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article needs deletion it has no reliable third person sources or notability. Fails criteria WP:NOTE, WP:SOURCE Dwanyewest (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC) *Note: Added missing AFD heading. --Canley (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —JJL (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Yet another malformed AfD that is apparently not even listed at the AfD page. Some editors seem to be aggressively misinterpreting the notion "AfD is not for article improvement" and declining to do even a simple web search to verify notability. I assume the goal is to wear down those who do check these things on Google--a deletion-war of attrition--accompanied by copious complaints that WP:SOFIXIT only applies to the "other guy". A cursory search on Google turns up article in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/85866), the Poughkeepsie Journal, and Business News , The Record , quoting NAPMA on martial arts business and national statistics, and in the Charleston Gazette highlighting a local instructor who was featured on NAPMA's magazine's cover ; gubernatorial and similar proclamations in Arkansas , Florida , Alaska , and New Mexico , and a related story in The Herald News of Joliet, IL ; a court case ; press releases by major companies like Coca-Cola ; and in general enough to establish notability. Wikipedia needs to find a way to enforce that AfD nominators do at least a cursory check before nominating an article rather than attempting to force others to do this task for them by the expedient of the AfD. JJL (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to be some random guy just nominating for the sake of deletion but there are too wikipedia articles martial arts related articles or non martial art articles that don't use reliable third person sources to demonstrate noteworthiness. Such as Amateur Martial Association,World Shorinji Kempo Organization,PERSILAT,Commonwealth Taekwondo Union. I was gonna say if it was so notable then fix it since there is more than sufficient sources can be used to prove its noteworthy it should be added to the main article. Surely the previous poster can agree if someone is gonna create an article that it should provide sources that aren't solely primary and are independent of the subject this article IMO was not.

Dwanyewest (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per JJL. Needs to be rescued and the sources added. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per User_talk:Dwanyewest jmcw (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google Book search shows a martial arts magazine called Black Belt (magazine) covers them in various articles they have. This includes a lifetime achievement award NAPMA gave someone, and the NAPMA 2001 World Conference, which it says "attracted some 1400 martial arts instructors from around the globe".  The Google news search results show many promising results also, but the magazine coverage and what others have found already is enough.  Remember, always Google search BEFORE you nominate.   D r e a m Focus  20:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article can be fixed. Consensus was not reached. Vampyrecat (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to start rewriting the article and put secondary sources what's stopping anyone doing it now. If someone is gonna create an article they should at least have the decency to put reliable sources the onus is on an editor to prove what they are writing is trueWP:PROVEIT. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment but that has been proven by the sources given above--why do you keep quoting WP:PROVEIT? Are you not yet convinced? JJL (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone one keeps going on it can be saved but have done to improve it by ACTUALLY ADDING THE SAID SOURCES which I have at least done. I haven't added some sources because some such require some form of trial or subscription which I don't believe wikipedia allows.WP:Access to sources Dwanyewest (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? Your link says exactly the opposite of what you believe: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." As for getting other people to add sources--please try not to be controlling. Thanks for improving the NAPMA article though--it's definitely in better shape now. JJL (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * right. Wikipedia is not limited to what is free on the web. Libraries exist, and it is helpful to use them. Most paid sources found on the web can be made available for free via even a good public library, let alone a university library, though it may take a while. Fortunately, there is no deadline for improving an article. Of course the person who writes the article has the first responsibility to do this, but if not, according to WP:BEFORE, the nominator has the responsibility to at least see if such sources exist.   DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 19 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.