Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qwan Ki Do (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Qwan Ki Do
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested deletion, and previously deleted via AfD, there are no reliable sources for this, and none that immediately present themselves via Google. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: insufficiently sourced; COI/OR-ridden hagiography. Quis separabit?  23:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. It can't be a hagiography because it's not a biography. I've also added scholarly sources and removed the uncited material. Tell me whether it works for you. Lourdes  09:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (Changed !vote to delete; see discussion below. Lourdes )  Keep Because  has nominated this, I'll only comment that contrary to the nomination statement, there seem to be considerable scholarly material and Google News sources available to support the article's existence. If the material currently contained is promotional, that should be deleted en masse and only minimal contextual encyclopedic material may be retained. The subject is of considerable interest and has been researched reliably.  Lourdes  07:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You make a good case for WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My point was that contrary to your nomination statement, there were quite a few reliable sources. You could perhaps consider striking/changing/withdrawing your nom statement (but of course I'll defer to your judgment on that). I've taken your suggestion and nuked all uncited and promo material. I've now quoted six scholarly research material on the subject within the article. In case the article is kept, interested editors can work on it to expand the same from the sources I've provided and from the many other reliable scholarly and news sources available online. Thanks. Lourdes  09:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I was sitting on the fence with the article in the form it was when the AfD was proposed primarily because the references were so poor - my main question is Is the art notable?  I don't particularly think that the new references address that but they sure are better than what was there before.  The art itself (despite the references) is pretty obscure. I do think that   took a cleaver to the article where a kitchen knife would do based on what is in other articles of this type but it did need some paring down.  OK so I am still sitting and hoping for references that talk about the art specifically not just passing mentions.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . Thanks for the points. I'm confused with two of your statements: "The art itself (despite the references) is pretty obscure" and "hoping for references that talk about the art specifically not just passing mentions". If you go through the references "Cojocariu, A. (2011). Measurement of reaction time in Qwan Ki Do. Biology of Sport, 28(2), 139" or "Adrian, C., Bogdan, U., & Alexandru, O. (2015). Evaluation of Anaerobic Lactacid capacity in elite Qwan Ki Do athletes. Gymnasium, 16(1), 85.Chicago" or "Cojocariu, A., Ungurean, B., & Oprean, A. (2013). Improvement of the endurance motor skill in elite Qwan Ki Do athletes. Sport & Society/Sport si Societate, 13(2)", these are full scholarly research reports on the art. Why would you consider these passing mentions? Lourdes  10:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Passing mentions is a relative term I guess. Those articles really don't talk about the art itself but just use the art as a benchmark in various studies (ie. the art exists).  I have a few other issues on the references themselves, I don't think they are peer reviewed and my flags go up when, as I said, a relatively obscure art, is used as a basis - but I think they are acceptable for wikipedia's purposes.  Now I say obscure based on my knowledge but then my opinion should not count and references do.  I just would like to see more references that talk specifically about the art.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for the detailed clarification. "Those articles really don't talk about the art itself but just use the art as a benchmark in various studies (ie. the art exists)" I absolutely disagree. The literature review in each of these references is more than detailed about the art. These are scholarly researches, not research reports. Scholarly researches like these give an introduction, an exhaustive literature review of the field, the hypothesis being developed, the experiment to test the hypothesis, the results, interpretation and conclusion. I'm not sure if you've gone through these references as they are not easily available (and I have to thank Wikipedia for giving me access to various libraries).
 * Actually most are downloadable in their entirety and the others the abstract. Most refer to one group in Romania that were used in a study - and that is the only detail there.  Nothing on how wide spread the art is, how notable, its origins, nothing but that it exists.  The art was chosen for the study based on availability not on it being exceptional in any way.  The question remains do the references establish notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I disagree with your view that the researches are not peer reviewed. For example, quoting the Biology of Sport website, "Biology of Sport is the official journal of the Institute of Sport National Research Institute, located in Warsaw, Poland, published since 1984. Biology of Sport is an international scientific peer-reviewed journal..."
 * Other than that, the discussion about the detailing of material from the reference should take place on the talk page of the said article, and I'll look forward to discussions there. Thanks once more for your detailed response. Lourdes  10:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Requesting and other editors to take a quick look at the book sources that I've added subsequently.  Lourdes  02:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I'm leaning towards delete, I'd like to see some other editor's comments. I don't see what I would call significant independent coverage of this art, but others may disagree.  Being mentioned in a book consisting of WP articles does not support notability.  Coverage seems to consist predominantly of reports on tests that were done with students of this art.  I don't think that is sufficient to show that art is notable.  I'm more inclined to see this as passing mentions as these tests could probably have been done on students of any martial art. Papaursa (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I may be wrong but these two books which I have added as source do not seem to be compilation of WP articles. They seem to be authentic content driven books. Do tell me how they appeal to you. Thanks. Lourdes  08:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right that those books are not a compilation of WP articles. However, the fact that this art gets a few sentences in a 900 page book that claims to be a complete encyclopedia of all the world's martial arts does not strike me as significant coverage.  The issue isn't whether or not the art exists, but whether or not it is notable. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply . I realize the growing consensus is that the sources do not sum up for notability of this martial art. I see sense in the comments of the editors who have taken time to reply to my queries. Phew... I tried though to churn up some sources. Am changing my !vote to delete too given the logic forwarded by other editors.  Lourdes  09:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite the efforts of Lourdes, I do not believe that this art has the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I also don't see evidence to show it meets the martial arts notability criteria at WP:MANOTE.  This is based both on my own search and the sources already presented. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2016 (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.