Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabi Su


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 02:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Nabi Su

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the claims in the article's opening sentence that this is a hybrid martial art, most of the sources seem only to recognise 'Nabi Su' as a New York based martial arts school. Even then, specific discussion of Nabi Su is painfully thin. Much of the article's content seems to be original research or at best a novel synthesis of fact. For example: the article contains the claim "Perhaps most importantly, however, Pai studied Yang style T'ai Chi Ch'uan with 4th generation Yang style t'ai chi master Cheng Man-ch'ing." this assertion is cited to a you tube video that shows Cheng Man-ch'ing practising Tai Chi (alone); it in no way supports the claim that Pai studied under him. The Halevy reference is about as close as any reference in this article comes to demonstrating notability, but it doesn't actually focus on Nabi Su as an art/style/school; it simply discusses Tai chi and includes Carolyn Campora. Some of the sources offer discussion of Pai and, to a lesser extent, Yun Mu Kwan, but the subject of this article is Nabi Su and I can find precious little sources to demonstrate the notability of this subject. Bellerophon talk to me  13:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Hybrid martial art just means that the art can no longer be classed as of a particular national origin and says nothing of the size. I remember pushing for that classification because the original Chinese martial art was clearly wrong.  With  respect to size this school hardly seems notable but still it has been around for quite awhile.  Personally I see notability in its oddity and for the moment reserve judgement.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete My search found nothing that shows this martial art is widespread or notable. It appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Article seems more about a school than a widespread martial art. Lacks coverage for GNG and fails WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply Part 1: Reliable Sources and Notability In answer to Bellerophon's comments above: This martial art style is notable. 1) Popular Science magazine did a feature article on this martial art style in 1968. The referenced URL link will lead you directly to the article. The article was written when the style was named "Yun Mu Kwan Karate." The name was changed to "Nabi Su" in 1987. 2) The referenced memoir "Ambivalent Zen" features descriptions of the developing Yun Mu Kwan/Nabi Su Tai Chi and Kung Fu style throughout the book. The memoir was written by Lawrence Shainberg, a well known author. It was published in 1995 by Random House, in hardcover and paperback, and is still in print. 3) Ramon Korff, the photographer who documented the early Yun Mu Kwan Karate/Nabi Su years, is a Pulitzer prize winning photographer. Some of his photos from 1964 have been retrieved from the Puerto Rican Spanish language newspaper archives of "El Dia," now known as "El Nuevo Dia." Other photographs taken by him include a visit to Yun Mu Kwan/Nabi Su by Eido Tai Shimano Roshi. Eido Roshi is an internationally known Roshi, author and founder of the Zen Studies Society, New York Zendo Shobo-Ji (a New York City Zendo) and Dai Bosatsu Zendo Kongo-Ji (a New York State Monastery). These photographs document notable events. 4)An article from the now defunct Connecticut Weekly newspaper "Fairpress," which was a division of the Gannett publishing company, discussed Min Pai's "zen healing."

These are all wide ranging, professional, reliable sources.

Unfortunately, many of these sources predate the internet and are not currently available on-line. The 1968 Popular Science article is available on-line.

It should also be noted that none of the publications listed above are martial arts vanity presses or martial art specialty sources. It is indeed rare for a martial art style with so few practitioners to receive notable references from main steam publications spanning nearly five decades.

Nabi Su has been a unique evolving style for more than 50 years. Although it does not have a large number of practitioners, because it is notable, the New York Times, the health/exercise cable TV program "Workout From Within," Sinovision Cable TV, and other news media have requested Nabi Su practitioners to comment or appear on their programs. (To further document Nabi Su's notability, I have added a second Halvey "Workout from Within" reference from a different episode, and I have added a reference to the SinoVision English Language Chinese News cable TV program.)

Reply Part 2: Chinese Style or Hybrid Martial Art? Nabi Su is an accepted American grown "Chinese Style" form of Kung Fu. For example, SinoVision English Language cable TV channel invited Nabi Su practitioners to perform at the media "kick off" celebration of the new Shanghai Television cable TV show "A Fist Full of Kung Fu." Their purpose in selecting Nabi Su Kung Fu as the only performers for their media event was to highlight the interrelationship of Chinese and American martial arts culture. Nabi Su is also correctly classified as a "modern hybrid martial art." It is not a hybrid martial art in the sense of "Mixed Martial Arts" which have come to mean an aggressive sport/fighting style. It is a hybrid in the sense that it developed from varied influences which have evolved into a new, unique, identifiable style of its own. Some modern hybrids are famous - Jeet Kune Do - for example, while other are little known - Bartitsu, Sanjuro. The Wikipedia "List Chinese of Chinese Martial Arts" includes a section of "Modern Hybrids" under which are listed several styles developed and primarily practiced in the United States and other countries outside of China. I originally placed the Nabi Su article under that listing, but other editors believe it was improperly placed there. Although I disagree, I understand the reasoning, and therefore listing Nabi Su under the separate Hybrid Martial Art style would also be appropriate.

Reply Part 3: YouTube Links and Extraneous Material Removed The Nabi Su article was substantially rewritten by other editors who added numerous YouTube links and made other changes which added much information that was not strictly about Nabi Su and its creation. I have deleted substantial extraneous material. I look forward to continue improving this article and meeting all of Wikipedia's guidelines. Mary Vaccaro (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * — Mary Vaccaro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The Popular Science issue is about someone trying to learn karate, at best a passing mention. Several of the other sources don't even mention this style by name.  According to the website, the school/art has 1 teacher who does all kung fu classes and  no locations outside of NYC.  Clearly does not meet any of the notability criteria for martial arts at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Papaursa's Comments The Popular Science article is introducing "Karate" to the American public. It was written in 1968. The article goes into great detail about the moves in the style, what the stances look like, the punches, the routine of the class, the slow motion movement of the forms, the fast movement of the sparring. It has many references to and direct quotes from Min Pai. For example, I quote the article:


 * Pai explains: "They cannot make contact. If they do they will break bones." What is karate? Karate, he says, consists of blocks, punches, and kicks delivered with enormous force. "It is purely defensive," says Pai. "But when you do decide to defend, the first blow must break something."


 * "Your arms are hoses with the water running out of your fingertips," the master began. "Your hand is an arrow in flight; it has no energy; but when it strikes, then is penetrates. Your body is a whip - weak in itself but strong wen focused. You will learn to know your body so well that when a fly lands on your shoulder you will feel off balance."


 * "Keep your body straight," said Pai. "Hold your toes parallel. Don't wind up. Wider stance. Get lower! Squeeze your rear. Squeeze! Pull your forward hand back hard!"


 * "Americans have a terrible time; they always want to hunch their shoulder and wind up for punches and duck." In karate, instead of dodging, you block.

I highly disagree that the article only gives a "passing mention." The entire article is the reporter's detailed description of what he sees, feels and is taught by Min Pai at the Yun Mu Kwan Karate Institute.

In answer to your concern that "the school/art has 1 teacher who does all kung fu classes and no locations outside of NYC", I have added a new section listing four schools that are currently teaching versions of Min Pai's Nabi Su style. All of these schools share the same history, all are independently run, and none of them are currently associated with each other. There are a few other people teaching the style, but I am not authorized to list their schools. I imagine now that a list is created, others may expand it. Thank you for suggesting this improvement.

As to the fact that I have made few other contributions, yes, this is my first article, and I will be writing/collaborating on more articles. This is not my only interest. It is my first article and I will continue improving it and defending it. I have been studying Wikipedia guidelines, and I intend to be an active and responsible editor on various subjects.

I know there are not too many women editors/contributors, and that is another reason that I intend to contribute and be an active Wikipedian.

Please let me know what other information you need to improve this article.

Mary Vaccaro (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Mary, much of your argument for Nabi Su's notability hinges on it's evolvement from Yun Mu Kwan. On the subject of notability: In order for there to be an independent Nabi Su article we need to be able to see why Nabi Su is notable in its own right, not by it's relation to Yun Mu Kwan, and it doesn't appear that it is -- at least not by Wikipedia's standards. On the subject of sourcing: The Popular Science article discusses 'karate' and makes reference to Yun Mu Kwan, it does not mention Nabi Su. Because of this, although that article may be of limited use in verifying the early history/evolution of Nabi Su -- as an aside, the relationship between Nabi Su and Yun Mu Kwan seems poorly documented and requires much stronger sourcing -- it does not help with establishing the notability of an art form which did not, at that point in time, exist. Finally, it may interest you to know that there are many female experienced editors on Wikipedia, and several prominent administrators. Bellerophon talk to me  17:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Bellerophon's Comments 1) Perhaps the Nabi Su article is not clear enough, and I will work to correct it. Min Pai developed Nabi Su out of the art he originally learned in Korea. Although the art he was taught was called Yun Mu Kwan, Min Pai, from the time he opened his own school in the 1950's, was actively changing and evolving his original style. The school that was called "The Yun Mu Kwan Karate Institute" is what came to be called Nabi Su. It does not refer to the old Yun Mu Kwan style. (This might be similar to stating that in an article called "The Beatles," discussing "The Quarrymen" is actually a different subject and not the Beatles. "The Qarrymen" were an early version of the Beatles. They changed the name when they realized someone else already had it.) Min Pai changed the name from Yun Mu Kwan to Nabi Su to differentiate what he was practicing from the name of the old style he originally learned in Korea. He did not change the name to Nabi Su and then create the style. After creating the style, he changed the name. Discussing Min Pai's martial art style during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s is discussing Nabi Su. The name was changed AFTER the style was developed. The Nabi Su Wikipedia article is about Min Pai's development of a new martial art style that combined his Korean art with Chinese Kung Fu, Chinese Tai Chi, and Japanese Zazen. These changes occurred over decades.  By the early 1970s, he was already accentuating the Kung Fu, Tai Chi and Zazen aspects of the practice over the few remaining Korean elements. By the time of the official name change, the style was already fully and uniquely developed into a new art. Any discussion of Min Pai's style, especially from the late 1960s through the 1970s is necessarily about the Nabi Su style. The original Korean Yun Mu Kwan that Pai learned was long gone by then. (When one searches for the history of the original Yun Mu Kwan as taught in Korea, it seems to have disappeared as its own art form, and it seems to have been melded into the foundation of Tai Kwan Do. Yun Mu Kwan is not a style that is currently practiced or known as a style, as far as I can see, in the United States. Even in Korea, it seems to be more of a historical style.) The "Yun Mu Kwan" in the names of the currently practicing schools that are related to Nabi Su do not refer to the old, original Yun Mu Kwan style, they refer to the style Min Pai created and eventually renamed "Nabi Su." To differentiate themselves, the four remaining Min Pai schools have taken on differing names, largely based upon where they were in their relationship with Min Pai or where they were in the evolution of the style: "Yun Mu Kwan," "Nabi Su," "Min Pai's Yun Mu Kwan," and "Wellspring Zen Monastery."

2) Regarding the number of female editors, Wikipedia states: "Information on the gender gap can be found at meta:Gender gap. The significant and stable under-representation of women results in persistently unbalanced coverage (e.g. articles related to football are much more developed than articles related to motherhood) in Wikipedia. The gender gap may be driven significantly by Wikipedia's conflict-oriented culture. Experienced female editors can be very successful—they are more likely to become administrators than men—but they are more likely to leave if treated aggressively in discussions, especially as new editors, when their good-faith contributions are more likely to be reverted than a similarly good-faith contribution by a man."  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians

Mary Vaccaro (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 19:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutral but critical comments for now: The article's been changed substantively enough since this AfD started that it needs to be carefully reviewed again for WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE compliance, the key question being whether this is an actual notable martial art, or simply a school of yun mu kwan under a new name. I remain skeptical, because many of the added sources appear to be for fluff, e.g. quotations that not only do not help establish notability, they don't mention nabi su at all, and are not even of any relevance to the article and should be deleted, e.g. "Master Min Pai demonstrates the ancient Zen art of healing, which stems from the disciplines of Kung Fu, Tai Chi and Karate.... Kneeling in perfect silence and stillness... Master Pai achieved the transfer of energy...."  This is just new-agey gibberish.  Second, various bits of local news coverage have been added, but being briefly interviewed for commentary on women's safety and martial arts, for example, doesn't at all help establish notability or tell us anything encyclopedic about nabi su, its history, its founder, or why it is notable in its own right.  And so on.  I did not start back at the top of the article and examine every citation, I just picked two and both failed.  While I appreciate the principal author's earnestness, the effort appears to be essentially promotional, and a bit standoffish, as if there's a  for every martial arts school and variant to have an article here.  That editor also needs to see WP:DIVA:  Extensive but selective quotation of a projectpage on female editors to give the impression "I'm a woman editor who is going to quit if I don't get my way, because deleting this article would amount to being aggressive toward me" is not going to win anyone over at all. It's manipulative and unconvincing; being a fallacious argument to emotion, it more importantly does not rationally advance any sources- or policy-based argument for keeping this article.  All of that said, the article  improved in some ways, and I'm reluctant to say it should be deleted outright.  Someone from the martial arts wikiproject who is good at "rescuing" trouble articles should probably have a go at this and see if it can be both shored up with real, relevant facts and sources, and stripped of unencyclopedic blather and hand-waving. The entire thing also needs copyediting to comply with WP:MOS in about a dozen ways.  Should these issues not be addressed in a timely manner, consider this comment support for "weak delete, or merge to Yun mu kwan".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete My search found no significant independent coverage of Nabi Su. I agree with the points made in the previous delete comments.  The gender of the author is irrelevant to the article's notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply to SMcCandlish: Thank you for your remarks. I agree that this article needs editorial help. I will study the manual of style and make corrections over the weekend. I appreciate any further advice you may have on improving this article. I would also appreciate any editorial contributions and/or guidance from other knowledgeable editors. Mary Vaccaro (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about Inappropriate Remarks by "Anonyous User" How do I deal with an anonymous user who keeps adding statements that one of the 4 Nabi Su schools is not "authorized to teach" etc.? As soon as I removed the remarks, they get replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Vaccaro (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded at your user talk page. Bellerophon talk to me  07:49, 10 July 2014 (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.