Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaolin-Do


 * 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. --Core desat 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Shaolin-Do

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A non-notable article with no realiable sources. There is no need for this article on wikipedia.-- Southern Texas  04:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Keep A google search shows up quite a number of hits for this form of martial arts. Moreover, this webpage provides a detailed coverage of this subject as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 04:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. Bad faith nom. Dbromage 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete a waste of time-- Southern Texas  04:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This increases suspicion of a bad faith nom. Dbromage 04:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and Close This nom and the one above seems to imply Bad Faith. Sawblade05 04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the nominator has claimed to have retired from Wikipedia I feel even more inclined with my Speedy Keep and Close vote and this discussion should be closed immediately. Sawblade05 05:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when did a nominator's personal status become a criteria for speedy keep? The very fact that you are attacking the nomination based on the qualities of the nominator is violation of WP:NPA. Stick to content, not contributors. VanTucky  (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - well, there's a least one whole book on the subject, and the article is under development, so I say let it get cleaned up and kept.Haemo 05:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad faith nom I've nominated an article of this user for merge and another for renaming. This user wishes to delete articles of mine.  This is a bad faith nom.Balloonman 04:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC) EDIT Weak Keep as a result of finding some secondary sources mentioned below.Balloonman 15:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As per the reasons I contested the proposed deletion of this article on it's talk page. A search of the newspaper archive site http://nl.newsbank.com for the phrase "Shaolin-do" shows 68 newspaper articles about the subject.  While the entire articles are paid access, it's clear from the opening paragraphs of the articles that they are a significant number of non-trivial mentions, with local newspaper articles about Sin The teaching or performing book signings at local bookstores, articles about local Shaolin-do fighting tournaments, articles about local dojo having their rank tests, articles about local martial arts groups that include discussion of Shaolin-do.  (That's also only among the newspapers archived on that site.)  Shaolin-Do is clearly notable, and reliable sources do exist, even if they aren't cited.  That's grounds for cleanup, not deletion.  --Wingsandsword 05:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wings, I would love to see this page kept... and the only thing that keeps me from being a vocal defender is that *I* couldn't find reliable secondary sources. Everything I found was from Shaolin-Do (or affiliated) schools or blogs.  If you can find RS, go for it.  But you need to be proactive and start now.  (The Prod you removed was placed on there a month ago, and Vantucky has been the primary editor on the page since then.)  Notability, IMO, is a slam dunk---it's RS that isn't.  RS is usually the easier of the two to establish.Balloonman 16:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Appropriate sources do exist. As for sources from Shaolin-Do, like Sin The's book, according to Verifiability, can be used as sources to an article within certain limitations (for example, their highly contentious/self serving claims of training lineage from the Shaolin Temple are right out, at least as being anything more than a claim).  The newspaper sources do exist clearly, and while some may be press releases or the like, a few appeared to be at least a little substantial.  They may be archived in a paid-access database, but that doesn't make them not Reliable, just like citing a book you'd have to actually go out and buy instead of looking up on the web is acceptable.  Notability is pretty blatant, any kind of franchise/chain with 100+ locations across the US that have been the subject of dozens of newspaper articles over 20+ years would meet that criteria.  I don't have a copy of Sin The's book so I can't start citing it, but the sources and notability are there enough to push it over the threshold into Keep.  If necessary, reduce the article to a stub of what can be verified quickly and rebuild it from there (which might take a while).  For precedent, look at a similar controversial martial arts related AfD, with similar nomination of lack of notability and reliable sources that was repeatedly kept Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (3rd nomination) --Wingsandsword 17:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are over 15,000 ghits with Altavista... most of what I can find are affiliated with the schools. Here are some [semi]independent sources (but like any source ultimately reports the oral/written lineage of Shaolin-Do) USA Dojo.com Kickboxing.com, USA Dojo.com has the grandmaster listed in their "Grandmaster's hall of fame."  They then indicate that "Grandmaster The' is an internationally known martial artist and has been featured in Black Belt, Inside Karate, Inside Kung Fu, and Masters magazines.", kungfumagazine---requires access, and Master Joe Schaefer quoted.  Feel free to use them in the article---I haven't worked on this in forever.Balloonman 04:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete While the nom is a poorly-executed argument for deletion, there are still legit reasons to delete. All but one of the ghits mentioning this Mcdojo chain are from the school branches or completely unreliable sources. The hits from the newsbank are almost exclusively for press releases and events listings. Besides, none of them can be properly cited as WP:RS because the actual content is unavailable. The one news mention to be found, from a broadcast TV station is patently trivial. It's a YouTube clip of a story on a foiled attack in a parking garage that uses a instructor as an anecdote about self-defence. It doesn't even mention the chain's name explicitly. The book is authored by the system's founder, which hardly makes it a third party source. Just because this group has a load of schools doesn't mean they meet WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable and independent sources exists. VanTucky  (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I somewhat agree with VanTucky! But for different reasons.  When Van put a PROD on it a few months ago, I let Van know that I wouldn't oppose it, but would leave it up to others to defend this article.  I do believe that the school is clearly Notable (there are virtually no martial arts systems with 100+ schools that acknowledge one person as their head---this makes it notable IMHO.  Likewise a system that garners the animosity that can be found on the web demonstrates its notability---non-notable systems don't generate thousands of blogs attacking the system.)  The problem is that it doesn't have much in the way of reliable independent sources!  This was one of my first articles to write; and knowing what I know now, I question if there are sufficeint reliable sources!  For example, the 68 articles above, when I looked at many of the articles I could find for free via Factiva, they were essentially paraphrases of various press releases concerning upcoming tournaments/testing/etc.  The problem with Martial Arts systems is most rely upon their own oral/written histories.  There are thousands of pages discussing the school---but most are affiliated with the system or blogs attacking it. The problem is, that there is very little in the way of independent sources for Martial arts systems (see my notes on the articles talk pages.) I do, however, disagree with Van's use of the pejorative "McDojo."  I won't vote to delete, but in all honesty, I can't support keeping the article.Balloonman 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Per some sources noted above, am going to change stance above to weak keep---but won't bold it here as it might appear as a double vote.Balloonman 15:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Week delete Article is not in a good way, notability contested, & while it may be notable it is as yet unsourced. Needs heavy improvement or deleting, leaving as is is not an option. p.s. the bad faith nom would suggest keeping for a chance to improve but a start needs to be made befor the debate closes --Nate1481(t/c) 09:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions.  -- Nate1481(t/c) 09:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete From the number of schools the article claims, one would expect there to be news coverage. But the only sources cited do not appear to satisfy WP:N's requirement that they be intellectually independent of the subject. The various claims to it being a notable ancient martial arts system appear to lack independent and reliable sources. Edison 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep per wingsandswords. Mathmo Talk 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- 69 Newspaper articles on newslib, at least one book reference, many physical locations teaching the system - Wikipedia is not paper, we have room for the article while it is improved. Oh yeah, and...  bad faith nom--Parsifal Hello 05:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I can personally attest to there being many Shaolin-Do training locations. I know of at least 3 in the surrounding counties. Sin The was best known in the 1980s because he had apparently gotten an exclusive contract with the manufacturers of the original wave pool, making his the only sports center in the United States with such a pool. Searching for announcements of the wave pool in local newspaper archives might turn up several of the old locations that existed before Sin went bankrupt. Ehrichweiss 20:15, 10 August 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.