Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shindō jinen-ryū


 * 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   merge to Dai Nippon Butoku Kai. Spartaz Humbug! 05:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Shindō jinen-ryū

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A poor article with insufficient third person sources to demonstrate notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep It is a well known karate school with a long history. I have added a couple of citations, which you could have done in the time it took to propose deletion --- just look in Google Books. There is much more in Japanese, but I don't have time for that today. Francis Bond (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —Jakejr (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Merge into Dai Nippon Butoku Kai. I found several internet articles on this style that appear to be independent, although I'm not 100% sure. Jakejr (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed my vote because, after rereading both articles, I think user Janggeom's idea is better. Jakejr (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Dai Nippon Butoku Kai, or keep if the article can be improved. Janggeom (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Dai Nippon Butoku Kai. Article lacks sufficient content and sources to be a stand-alone article. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is one of six styles of one of eleven disciplines that were part of the Dai Nippon Butoku Kai. Notability has been established so just keep it.  No doubt people will flesh it out over time. Francis Bond (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's been shown to be notable enough to not be completely removed, but it hasn't been shown that it should have its own article. Since the article has existed for over 5 years, I think there's been time for it to be "fleshed out". Jakejr (talk) 21:08, 30 December 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.