Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nippon Shorin Ryu Kenpo


 * 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 d e lete. east. 718 at 10:38, November 28, 2007

Nippon Shorin Ryu Kenpo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It's an offshoot of an offshoot notability is highly questionable, 1 dead link one primary otherwise unsourced. Nate1481(t/c) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions.  -- Nate1481(t/c) 09:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: no sign of any verifiable sources --Pak21 (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * what other sources do you want? I put all the ones I know of  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.218.80 (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources that are not related to the club and meet Verifiability --Nate1481(t/c)


 * What club? Mr. Vaughn is not affiliated with either Kosho ryu or Kara Ho.  He formed this art and it is a recognized Martial Art.  If you want to be ignorant, then go ahead  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.218.80 (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article dose not make clear where the art is taught and if it is just one or multiple clubs --Nate1481(t/c) 09:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete For the benefit of the participants who might be less-familiar with Wikipedia's inner workings, I'll reiterate some basic points: "The free encyclopedia" does not mean a free-for-all in content, or a free advertising service. Just because it exists does not mean it merits coverage in an encyclopedia, and there are standards of notability that must be met for a topic. This is not just a matter of principle, it is practical. Since this martial arts school hasn't received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, then there is no way for writers to verify that content is factually accurate (notice I did not say true). On Wikipedia, if there is no possibility of verification, then there can be no article. Plain and simple. Van Tucky  Talk 19:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

what is plain and simple is that I will never donate to wikipedia. YOu are arrogant, and dont know anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.218.80 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. JJL (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is taught at Elite Martial Arts Academy in Union, SC and is recognized by the Universal Martial Arts Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billycook3 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

what harm is there if you leave it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.218.80 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources to support notability. Also, sigh. Bradford44 (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea that the article does no harm is based on your personal point of view on the article, which isn't related to Wikipedia deletion policy. Basing decisions on personal feelings rather than standing policy is an argument we try and avoid during deletion debates. Van Tucky  talk 01:17, 28 November 2007 (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.