Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaolin 72 arts (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. The consensus here is that the article in its current form does not have sufficient sourcing to establish notability, but there doesn't seem to be any fundamental issue with idea of an article at this title, provided appropriate sources could be found. Thus, if anybody wants to continue working on this, any admin can recover the original text and move it to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Shaolin 72 arts
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was recently deleted after an AfD debate (Articles for deletion/List of the 72 Shaolin martial arts) but the speedy delete for repost was declined because the article was not identical. Considering that in both cases the article is primarily a list of the 72 techniques I don't believe that to be the case. The arguments in the first AfD still hold - further sources in the new article are all derived from the single source in the first. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm expanding the article, don't delete it, please. this is just one day after i've begone editing the article. naturally, i first had to list the 72 methods and after that write down them one by one. so after just 1 day you would definitely just see a list. it takes me several weeks or maybe a few months to complete it. there are also other sections i'm going to add to it. so, let the article be expanded, not deleted.

about the further sources of the new article, they are totally different, much more respected, sources that it is the first time that are talked about in the English language community. previously, the page just had one source, Jin Jin Zhong's book, but these new sources include Shaolin monk Shi Deqian's "Encyclopedia of Shaolin martial arts," and the great video series by monk Shi Dechao, both from Shaolin temple. if you refer to the stub list i've already created in the article you see that even the list is different from the previous one, not just in the order, but in the items, too. though i use Jin's book, but it's now just 1 source out of them, and it's even one less important source now. there's also Wu Jiaming's book, i think you mean it, because, as you said, this book is derived from the first source. but monks Deqian's and Dechao's sources are totally different, just take a look at their methods list for reference. because of the new sources and the approach in this new article, it will definitely be totally different from what you'd expect from Jin's book. and don't forget, what you believe is not the case. you had better talked to me before nominating the article for deletion, dear PRehse, this is a bad practice. the article just needs an expansion, which i'm definitely going to gradually do. so, i ask you to withdraw the deletion request for now, and let me do what i'm supposed to do. thanks man. SHemmati10 (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. If the 2 lists are different, how can both sources show the notability of the article's list?  What does "what you believe is not the case" mean in terms of this article's notability?  If the article wasn't ready, why did you put it out there instead of working to get it right first?  Especially when it had already been deleted. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * at least in the framework of Shaolin kung fu, almost everything has got several versions. because unlike Karate and Taekwondo, it is not something created in the 20th century and doesn't have those kinds of 20th century sports standards. every lineage have their somehow different list. in this regard, there are more than 72 of such methods altogether, i can even name 108 or more of them. but they are known as being 72, anyhow. this makes the lists somehow different (though i intend to cover almost all of the known methods, as far as the sources can support.), but this doesn't at all reduce the notability. at least among Martial Arts, these 72 Shaolin methods are kind of the most famous exercises. WIKIpedia should have these in the entries.
 * here, you all compare this entry with the previous version, which seemed to be mostly a list based on one reference. and it was said that the article "seems" to be so and so, ... some personal presumptions. i meant to say that what the article is going to be will be different from your personal imaginations. talk with reasons, not those personal beliefs and presumptions.
 * at last, it's not mandatory for WIKI articles to be created all at once. i prefer, based on several reasons for myself, to work gradually on articles. this is not supposed to be any problem whatsoever. SHemmati10 (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. None of the coverage seems independent and the claims in the article are not supported by sources.  Expanding the article appears to consist of expanding the description of each of the 72 drills, but WP is not a how-to manual.Mdtemp (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Mdtemp, you point 2 problems: 1. verifiability, 2. description method. verifiability is not rigorous here. WIKI is somewhere to find the answers to questions. one searches in Wiki for such a topic, like "iron head," "iron arm," "iron shirt" exercises, etc. WIKIpedia is the place. ok, we describe it here for them to know about it, based on official sources of Shaolin temple, the most respected ones. then are the effects verifiable? that's something else. i'll provide as much documentary video footages and scientific sources as available, or at least will redirect to other sources with scientifically reliable sources.


 * yes yes. i know, wikipedia content should be encyclopedic and 'descriptive' not 'instructional.' that's just a matter of changing the language of the article from instructive to descriptive. currently, the text language is directly like the instructional sources, editing the language to WIKI style is another stage. this was a valuable comment; thanks. SHemmati10 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete As the article currently stands I have to agree with the previous advocates for deletion. I'm not convinced that you can claim these sources are independent and there's certainly no support for the claims made in the article.  Claiming these drills are the basis for all wushu mastery, especially when many styles predate the publication of the earliest source, requires significant proof.  The article is full of unsupported puffery. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * these are a main part of martial arts exercises and for sure need their WIKI entry. you say "certainly..." what reason makes you certain? let me clear some points: there are many supports, but even if there's no support, such exercises (iron hand, iron head, etc) are done by many people from kinds of martial arts and thanks to these, people can break hard objects, which would be impossible for others to even think of breaking. back to the subject, there are several documentaries, and some scientific centers from the States and other countries have checked these phenomena via measuring tools, like the result confirms the claims. just that you think such sources don't exist doesn't make them really not exist. again i say, your 'personal' opinions is no reason, talk with reasons, not personal beliefs.
 * and about the styles. according to the historical records (which i'll cite in the article later), sine the 500s and 600s AD such exercises have been reported to have been officially practiced in Shaolin, and even before that. since then, because of the exchanges of knowledge, exercises have been exchanged from school to school. "conditioning" that is the key part of traditional kung fu training from north to south of China, all consists of such kinds of exercises (as i said they are not merely 72, but more. the 72 is just in the indicating name.) in Shaolin, these were however kept as sort of secret and published just after the wars in the 20th century, but that doesn't make other schools not know about them or practice them. this is easy to understand. after the movies, these exercises are practiced worldwide, from the Japanese Karate schools hitting walls to harden their knife hands, to the (fake) US gurus claiming to be able to affect people with their energy! (i'm a PhD researcher physicist myself and am actually familiar with the subject. i'll cite documentaries measuring the actual effects of this energy in Chinese masters and physicians. it's scientific, by actual scientists and tools. just wait for them, don't fall into personal imaginations if you don't know about the effects of body bioelectricity.) SHemmati10 (talk) 23:55, 24 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.