Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaolin Wahnam Institute (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   redirect to Wong Kiew Kit. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Shaolin Wahnam Institute
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating for deletion, primarily on notability grounds. The original AfD debate in 2009 closed with a Redirect to Wong Kiew Kit (who I do think passes notability) and was reverted to full article soon after. The issues from that time are essentially the same.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete & salt until an editor can present a reliable secondary source. I agree with Peter that Wong Kiew Kit's notability is established - unfortunately with the web-based claim of “Qi Gong Master of the Year". I would feel better if any of this subject material had a reference from a book or a martial arts magazine. jmcw (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Wong Kiew Kit again and protect. There doesn't seem to be anything to suggest that things have changed since the last AFD. Stalwart 111  14:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as there is clearly an effort to update and improve things. If secondary sources can be added this article will be fine.   Anre8 (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, that's pretty much the case with most articles nominated for deletion. If there were enough secondary sources, they would be okay, but there aren't so they are nominated. Do you have any secondary sources? Stalwart 111  23:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. If there is a problem with a picture that's too big or with external links, those can be changed by individual edits. There are more secondary sources than the Straits Times artcile(Inside Kung Fu article, Irish Times article); the source simply needs to be written in a more proper format.M (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There are many, many, many problems with the article but none so big as a basic lack of notability. The Straits Times article is written by the founder - hardly "independent" - and the other articles you mention aren't available. One is behind a paywall and the other is unlinked. Normally, that wouldn't be a problem but through a pea soup fog of promo-spam and single purpose accounts you're asking us to take your word for it that those articles, 1. say what you say they say; and, 2. provide the subject with sufficient depth of coverage to confer notability. Almost all of the other "sources" are completely valueless in terms of notability but the ones that can save the article just happen to be the ones nobody can access? Hmm... maybe not. Stalwart 111  01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "just happen to be the ones nobody can access?" These sources are just as accessible as a book is.M (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have a subscription to the Irish Times (and so have access to the text to cite it in the article and here as evidence of notability) then by all means tell us what it says. Likewise, if you have a copy of the magazine in question. Happy to assume good faith but your conduct so far (including the off-Wikipedia canvassing and meat-puppetry that I've raised at ANI) doesn't inspire much confidence. Stalwart 111  03:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has developed to become a top provider of information for internet users. On the other hand, it is a fact that Shaolin Wahnam Institute is a worldwide school with thousands of students in all the six continents of the world. If someone who may have his own interest complains about the Shaolin Wahnam Institute entry in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia deletes the page, it will make Wikipedia grossly incomplete in providing information.M (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but to determine what information we provide to users we employ policies and guidelines that help us to decide whether subjects are notable enough for inclusion. This article does not meet the criteria outlined in those policies and guidelines. Stalwart 111  06:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Inside Kung Fu Magazine, Tai Chi Union for Great Britain and International Kung Fu Federation. These are just a few off-hand secondary sources that I can find at the moment. Leeweijoo (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but neither of the first two would be considered independent enough - both are interviews with the Institute's founder, talking about the Institute and referring people back to his own websites. The third is a very short biography of the founder with a passing mention of the Institute. Definitely not "significant coverage". Stalwart 111  05:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: I've semi-protected this AFD due to this notice.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt or Redirect and protect The Irish Times link is used for this major claim:" Within the last 15 years, the school has spread worldwide and includes thousands of students." Sounds good, eh? But what is it? My Highbeam subscription has expired, but I found this which has been republished here.. The author is obviously no expert on the subject, simply a believer, and there is no mention of the school being spread worldwide and having thousands of students. The claim "Instructors under Wong teach in many countries around the world" is sourced to which doesn't make the claim and is an interview with someone running classes. The Institute mentioned no longer exists  and the structure is still a hope. I can see no sources establishing notability. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also dubious about the International Kungfu Federation as a source and have raised this at WP:RSN. Wong Kiew Kit is notable, but using his home page as the source of a definitive statement in Wikipedia that he "is the 4th generation successor of Jiang Nan of the Southern Shaolin Monastery"? Maybe that article needs a cleanup. By the way, why are we using this blog as a source for the first line? To find sources not directly from the Institute? Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt or restore redirect and protect - per rationale of nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is an advertisement.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wong Kiew Kit I think the first AfD got it right. I can't find the independent coverage required to show this school is notable.  Since the consensus is that Wong Kiew Kit is notable, I would redirect this article on the school he founded to his article (where it is already mentioned). Papaursa (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect and protect per first AfD result - a redirect is appropriate, an article is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * NoticeThis discussion has been taken to dispute resolutionPeter Rehse (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The dispute resolution filing has been closed. DRN does not accept requests about disputes at AfD. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) (as DRN volunteer)  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:26, 27 September 2013 (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.