Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samurai Aerobics


 * 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. Glass  Cobra  17:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Samurai Aerobics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

PROD challenged after deletion, but I don't particularly believe the rationale. Article has been tagged for major cleanup for 2+ years, and appears to be substantially OR/synthesis. I think it needs a WP:HEY rewrite to be kept, and I don't see that happening, given the article's history of neglect. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. What does a recently invented term for cardiovascular exercises have to do with the ancient Japanese warrior class? Let the article's own introduction answer that question: The ancient Samurai of Japan realized the importance of being in the very best physical condition. Though they may not have heard of aerobics, they knew that to win battles, they needed training. They practiced sword cutting and thrusting techniques thousands of times every day to build strength, power, and endurance.


 * The subject doesn't appear to be individually notable; the term "samurai aerobics" seems to conflict with WP:NEO; and the overall tone and structure of the article go against the guidelines of WP:NOTHOWTO. From the Google results, I can only see a seemingly non-WP:RS training manual called Samurai Aerobics: The Kenjutsu Workout. The article doesn't really discuss it, and even if it did, the book would most likely fail WP:BOOK anyway. I would recommend to merge the information somewhere else, but most of it looks like unsourced original research and all informative bits can already be found on Kendo, Kenjutsu, Samurai and other relevant pages. — Rankiri (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a manual, and from a brief search I have not yet found any sources to suggest notability. Janggeom (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, article has history of neglect because it was orphan, but as for notability there is 2.5M google hits for the same including videos. The article needs cleanup which i started already. Piano no who (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Google hits are nice, but you're waaay overstating the case this search gets 2.44m hits, while a more precise search (for the two words as a quoted string) shows under 2,500, with this Wikipedia article the first hit. When quotation marks wipe out 99.9% of your Ghits, that's not a particularly strong argument to use.  Cleanup is all well and good, but you'd be better off adding independent, reliable sources which demonstrate the notability of the topic.  If there aren't enough good sources with which to accomplish that, then cleanup isn't going to particularly help the article. Best wishes with your improvement efforts, I'd love to be surprised by the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:GOOGLEHITS. A large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Besides, Google only returns 156 unique results for "Samurai Aerobics" -wikipedia, not 2.5 million. From what I can tell, none of them can be seen as significant coverage by reliable sources required by WP:GNG. — Rankiri (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as completely-not-even-close-to-notable. The book it's based on isn't notable, and neither is the author of the book. This article fails to meet WP:N on every level. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The author isn't notable? That's debateable. He's written a number of books. . Mostly martial arts/weapons related, but not like he hasn't published anything before.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Unable to find any WP:RS and it fails both WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG. The article also seems to violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOTHOWTO.  The major contributors appear to have been SPAs (that's not necessarily bad, but it is worth noting). Papaursa (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats where I could not go forth. I could not find enough WP:RS in the lead section, other than inventor's own book. And the books mentioned in references section seem to be not connected to the article too. Piano no who (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now added few third party refs, take a look now. Piano no who (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I admit, when I saw the title I rolled my eyes. But when I looked at the references, I had to admit, it easily passed WP:GNG. The article definately need re-written into a more encyclopedic article rather than a how-to manual entry, but that's style, not notability. The topic itself is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked the nom if he'd consider letting this article go to the WP:INCUBATOR. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It has a long list of references, but what good does it do? Aside from the mentioned manual, none of them seem to actually discuss the subject or even mention the phrase "samurai aerobics". I strongly disagree that WP:GNG is satisfied. — Rankiri (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The manual, which is a decent first step calls it that. Then the other articles describe the same thing. Some people call it an automobile, some call it a car, but they're talking about the same thing. Is "samurai aerobics" trademarked or something that would prohibit others from calling their class by the same name? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. — Rankiri (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that just a reason to rename the article? --Natet/c 08:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To a degree. But there is a common sense factor that we ignore. If two classes each teach aerobocs, both using a bokken, and one calls it "Samurai Aerobics" while the other calls it "sword aerobics", that's not original reasearch. Simply re-titling the article could cover that. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These terms would still have to be notable outside the classes. To extend your earlier car analogy, if some reliable sources call it an automobile and some call it a car, it's not a reason to have an encyclopedia article for some silly car name like Satanvertible. Reliable sources call it kendo, kenjutsu or bujutsu, so let's keep the information there.  — Rankiri (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that kendo, kenjutsu, iaido etc. are the study of the art for the purpose of learning the use of that weapon, not borrowing portions of the art for solely aerobic purposes and your reasoning misses that part. Kickboxing is one thing. Aerobic kickboxing borrows portions of kickboxing solely for aerobic exercise purposes. (No, I'm not making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I'm illustrating the flaw in your example). I'd suggest a merge and redirect on this one if there was a single art to merge it to. But there are multiple ones this could go under. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Likely this form needs more place for training each person, so commercially did not succeed as much. I think notability is enough with refs in lead, though few more are always welcome from you, but below it needs drastic cleanup of sections. Piano no who (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that just a reason to rename the article? --Natet/c 08:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not get you, what to rename to? I just "cleaned up" few unreferenced sections by commenting out that are not essential. Piano no who (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC).
 * What's wrong with renaming it? Samurai aerobics may be a copyrighted name. So make it a generic title and it can take in courses teaching the same thing without being "original research". Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear, my comment related to Rankiri's mention of NOR. I have moved it accordin gly--Natet/c 14:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. It seems that the article has been partially rewritten. It now covers Joseph J. Truncale's exercise program and no longer suggests that is has anything to do with the history of Japan. However, from what I can see, the program is still only covered by a single primary source and doesn't seem to meet WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. — Rankiri (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A re-write can solve the idea that it is about a product and make it into an article about the concept. The concept meets GNG. The "brand name" may not. That's a matter of changing the title. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, again, just because the article no longer treats its subject as if it were a notable Japanese martial discipline, it's still only a how-to guide based on a very particular training program invented and described by a single non-notable primary source. The program heavily borrows from other much more notable training techniques, but that how is this in any way relevant? I still don't see any direct nontrivial coverage by reliable secondary sources, so the logic behind your willingness to keep the article still eludes me. — Rankiri (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article from Muscle and Fitness magazine calls it "Samurai conditioning". But it describes in detail, enough detail to see the overlap from samurai aerobics. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe this boils down to what you want the article to be about. If you want it to only be about Turncale's exercise program then I think it fails WP:GNG and should be deleted.  If you want an article about aerobic exercise using a sword, then I think the article can be salvaged with a rewrite (and renaming). Papaursa (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think both subjects fail WP:N. As for renaming, the problem here is that the article has no general information. It only discusses the equipment, positions, movement patterns, and names of techniques in Samurai Aerobics: Basic Manual for Students. If we remove all unique descriptions related to that book, as well as all duplicate and how-to content, we'll probably be left with the following single sentence: "Kenjutsu or Kendo involve the use of wooden sticks called Bokken for safety purpose." Considering the article's negligible traffic statistics, it doesn't even seem enough to warrant a redirect to Kendo. — Rankiri (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Traffic is the least of the considerations. If that were the standard, a lot of junk that gets kept under GNG should go. The article can be re-written. Unfortunately, I don't think I can do it in the next 24 hours and even if I could, I doubt I could get some diehards to change their !vote. I have already discussed it with the nom. He has no issue with this going to the incubator after this closes. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Probably should stubbify and rename. There's info out there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have included one of your ref for notability in the lead. Piano no who (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article needs work for sure, but seems notable. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non notable. It is unclear to me whether the huge amount of sources are actually being consulted throughout the article or if the author just listed them to try to show notability. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that they exist demonstrate passing GNG. That they aren't bing used with inline sourcing is a style issue, not a notability one. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are reading too much into my statement. I never confused notability and style. I simply questioned whether the author was trying to force notability by listing all of those sources. Having many sources on something doesn't necessarily mean it is notable. Besides, 99% of the sources pertain to sword postures and combat applications of them and not to the actual exercise itself. If you deleted the first and third sentences in the lead, the article could easily turn into one about Kendo. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:01, 24 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.