Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shotokan Karate Union


 * 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 "keep" opinions must be given less weight as less convincing in the light of Wikipedia policy and practice, particularly because they do not seriously address the concerns voiced about the sources, as also discussed on the AfD talk page.  Sandstein  08:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Shotokan Karate Union

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This organization exists, but I see nothing to show it's notable. The sources appear to be either event results or not independent, but I'll admit I couldn't find many of them. However, the burden of proof is on those creating the article to show there's significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Quite a bit of notability discussion on the article's Talk page. My comment there was that it is hard to tell whether this is anything more than a UK centered small grouping.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * keep notable organization based in the United Kingdom. Passes GNG. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any supporting evidence or is this just another of your votes to keep all martial arts articles? Papaursa (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I voted to delete Kimbo Slice, so how is that a keep to all martial arts articles? You seem to not like me.  Lets try to keep things civil.   CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. They unquestionably exist and they have tournaments. Neither of those make them notable. I'm not seeing the evidence of significant third party coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * keep agree with CrazyAces489 observations in addition they have affiliated members in other countries http://wckf.org/   http://wckf.org/members.php  Bazatom (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC) — Bazatom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What do the links do the World Christian Karate Federation have to do with this discussion? Papaursa (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like i walked between a personal grudge fight so not wishing to get involved in that but i agree with crazyace489 again, when he says "lets try to keep things civil." Although i thought the answer to the question was self evident, nevertheless the answer is, nothing other than the WCKF are members of the SKU http://wckf.org/ and the second link supplied http://wckf.org/members.php shows the spread of countries that are represented as members Bazatom (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC) — Bazatom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hard to be civil to someone who accuses 10 editors of being racist and bigoted simply because they disagreed with him.Mdtemp (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did anyone say racist or bigoted? or was a statistic given out? CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you need a link to the bogus SPI complaint where you intimated that editors were acting based on racial bias? Then, not only refused to back off if it, but doubled-down on the offensive notion? If you do, I can help you out. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like its the other way round for the three members of SKU listed - not sure how that talks to the notability of the SKU.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

it clearly states that the wckf are members of the the sku and not visa versa, i do see the 3 sku members listed who are also members of the wckf but i dont see anything on the sku site saying that the sku as a group are members of the wckf. Notability is a very subjective point of view, which is heavily dependent upon ones prejudices and therefore somewhat of a mine-field to be avoided, just like the opinions of someone with a track record of bias. But no matter how one chooses to view it, the original contribution suggests that the sku is more than a uk only group. Bazatom (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC) — Bazatom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I see that association now but still not sure how it talks to the notability of the SKU.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Bazatom: Are we trying to determine what the original contribution suggests or what can be verified through independent reliable sources? Notability may be subjective in the real world, but it's pretty straightforward on Wikipedia: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." While it's true that the SKU is very likely more than a UK group, truth is not what determines Wikipedia notability. The SKU could be a small local group with a couple of members and still be considered notable for Wikipedia as long as it can be shown it has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Article content does not determine whether the subject matter is notable simply because Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. We cannot make something notable through editing. Existence does not establish notability because notability is not inherent. Wikipedia articles about similar organizations do not establish notability because associations with other organizations do not automatically make something notable. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I think what needs to be determined is whether the organization itself has received the signifcant coverage in multiple reliable sources required by WP:ORG and not whether it has notable members. My understanding of WP:ORGDEPTH is that being mentioned in tournament results, lists of other similar organizations, or passing mentions in other sources is considered to be "trivial" coverage, not significant. Moreover, organizations do not inherit their Wikipedia notability from their members any more than a member inherits their Wikipedia notability from an organization they belong to. In each case, notability must be generally be established independently of the other, right? I have been watching this article since it was a draft. I have been trying to help clean it up as best as I can and find additional supporting sources. I was surprised when it was approved via AfC (after being previously declined twice before for lack of notability) simply because the main problem of no sources, in my opinion, which established its notability had not been fixed. If the article can be saved, I'm all for it. But, I was afraid it was going to eventually end up here and it has. Are there any specific WP:WPMA criteria which relate to the notability of organizations such as this? Not to get around "WP:ORG" or WP:GNG, but perhaps something which can provide guidance as to what types of sources are considered reliable for martial arts related-articles. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC); (post edited by Marchjuly to fix typos - 13:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC))
 * It also might be helpful to notify other editors whom have contributed to the article or any discussion of it (or its draft), the editor who accepted it via AfC, and WT:WPMA by using article name . I found out about this Afd because the article is on my watchlist. WP:AFD does not say that such additional notification is required, but it might not be a bad idea just to get additional input. I would do it myself, but I am not sure it is OK for me to do so since I am not the nominator. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC); (post edited by Marchjuly to correct grammar - 13:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC))
 * I've done that and in any case she has just edited the article so I suspect the AfD tag has been seen. As with Marchjuly I tried to fix up the article and the issue of sources and how significant the group is has been mentioned to the primary editor before.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - the sources where they are mentioned (as discussed on the talk page) are tournament reports; it is acknowledged that they exist, and compete. What they don't have is notability; the places where they are not mentioned is very telling - namely, the Shotokan Karate associations to which they should be a member.  According to their own associations, they are not notable enough for a mention.  ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject of this article, an organization, has received significant coverage in numerous WP:RS reliable sources as required by WP:ORG. It also meets WP:GNG for the same reason.   Cheers!     WordSeventeen (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @WordSeventeen: Could you be more specific as to what these numerous reliable sources are? If you have found something new that is not already being used in the article, then please add it yourself or post it at Talk:Shotokan Karate Union and I'll add it. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've started a discussion on each of the sources cited in the article as well as some possible sources at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Shotokan Karate Union. I think this will be helpful in evaluating whether the SKU has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some urls for the sources cited in the article have been added to the AfD talk page by the article's creator to help with verification. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Based on my own search and after looking at the discussion about the sources, I must admit that I don't see the significant independent coverage of this organization required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I checked out the article talk and AfD talk comments. It basically consists of "I couldn't find this print source on Google".  Well there is no requirement that that a source be on Google and specialty sources are just fine.  Based on the article titles, it looks like about half of the 11 sources would count toward notability, such is sufficient.  I will !vote weak keep since I can't see the sources myself, but am willing to assume good faith on the reliability of the sources.  Pinging  who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that "published" does not exclusively refer to online sources. Not being online just makes it harder, not impossible, to verify; Even so, verification is still required, isn't it? Is it considered acceptable, therefore, in such cases to ask that a "quote of relevant text from the source" be provided by the editor who added the source to help verify whether the coverage is signifcicant enough to establish notability since the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with them? It seems reasonable to assume that an editor adding an offline source as a reference has not only read the source, but also still has access to it . What happens, however, if in such cases the editor who provided the source is unable to provided further information because they cannot access the source any longer? Finally, "WP:GNG" says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Does this mean that the two cites each to Fighting Talk and Fighters, and possibly the cites to Traditional Karate and Combat (comments made on this AfD's talk page say that Traditional Karate was incorported in Combat in September 2009) should be treated as "single" sources, i.e., three sources instead of six, when it comes to notability and seperate, independent sources when it comes to article content?- Marchjuly (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It would certainly not be an unreasonable request to ask for quotes, but whether it is fulfilled or not probably shouldn't impact our decision.  As to whether multiple articles from the same source count as multiple sources for notability purposes, that depends largely on the nature of the coverage.  If two articles were published for essentially the same reason (e.g. to cover an event sponsored by the org) and/or by the same author, then that is represents only one view point and is thus like one source.  If the coverage is two different view points that happen to be in the same publication, that is like two sources.  Regardless, three good sources is generally considered sufficient for notability - so, everything is hanging on the quality of these unseen sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: More discussion of the sources would sway the outcome Spartaz Humbug! 19:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I wish more of the sources were readily available. I'm basing my comments both on what others have said and by looking at what the sources claim to reference. I'm not seeing enough significant independent coverage to show me this organization meets WP:GNG. I see non-independent sources and reliable sources that appear to provide non-significant coverage like event results. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Yeah, sorry, I just looked at the extensive review of the sources on the article's talk page. Especially given the hissing and the appearance of SPAs to vote Keep, I'm not taking anyone's word for anything. I want to see substantive sources I can get my hands on, and failing that, I don't believe they actually exist or that they say what it's claimed that they say.  Nha Trang  Allons! 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. There seem to be many more substantial references if one searches by the acronym the organization uses, and culls out the radio station, etc.  Many of the refs are in foreign languages, which may or may not also use the phrase karate.  See here ... and try the search as well on other google searches.  Leaning keep, but not yet !voting. Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think those organizations are not related to the organization under discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some certainly appear to apply to this organization -- they are the acronym by which this organization is known, and even just looking at the photos .... of people engaged in karate ... without applying google translate -- we can already see that they are an intersection of karate participants in an organization known by this acronym. Though of course this is a mixed bag ... there are still some article that, as you point out, are not related to this karate organization. Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche, I'm a bit confused by your post. Do you understand that the "World Shotokan Karate Union" and "Shotokan Karate Union" are different organizations? Papaursa (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Epeefleche in answer to the foreign enteries that cite the SKU from what i have seen the SKU has members in lots of countries and organisations that are members of them too for example the WCKF in the examples below say they are members and looking at their pages they are in many countries so i understand that by using the acronym i could find more examples. Bazatom (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Took your advice Epeefleche and searched by acronym and as a result found some further substantial references. See here           they range from foreign and domestic clubs and organisations citing the SKU GB in articles and press releases as being a notable organisation and worthy of citing. Then there are karate players who are acknowledging the SKU GB as making a contribution to their success. And other karate players displaying their grading statuses that were ratified by the SKU GB which to them must be a noteworthy organisation or they would not have linked themselves and their grade status to the organisation. So unless all these independent people are wrong then I am still of the opinion to keep.Bazatom (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)



Well I Disagree completely with you as they appear in my opinion to be former members, and as such can only therefore, be defined as currently independent.Bazatom (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Bazatom, you can only vote once so I changed your second bolded vote to lower case. In addition, none of those sources provide significant independent coverage of the Shotokan Karate Union.  In fact, some don't mention it at all, merely mentioning shotokan karate.  Those articles consist of people's unsupported biographies saying they were blackbelts and members of the SKU.  Many of them are adverts for clubs.  There's nothing independent in those sources that gives any indication of the SKU being notable. The discussion isn't about whether or not it exists, it's about whether or not it's notable as defined by Wikipedia. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You are very wrong on two counts firstly as they do not merely say shotokan karate as you state, but they say "shotokan karate (S.K.U.G.B)" or i would have not been able to find them as i was using the acronym in the search, what i think it is saying is that is the style of karate of the grade that they achieved was taken in the style of "shotokan karate" but in clarification they directly place one character space after the words "shotokan karate" the statement that it was with the SKUGB that they gained their grades, so not only have you read the links wrongly but you are unjustly presenting your wrong conclusion with some authority as if your misreading of the citation is a true and corrective fact, i like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt so i assume this is merely an oversight on your behalf and you will correct this immediately, and it is not just another totally unfair, biased point of view, as this confusion is a very misleading representation to anyone who just takes your misreading of the citation, without being bothered enough to read it themselves, as it clearly says "shotokan karate (S.K.U.G.B)". Another thing you seem to have conveniently overlooked is that there was an independent report in there from a local independent newspaper that states SKU name Bazatom (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at the sources you listed and didn't see any that provided the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that is required by WP:GNG. They definitely don't seem to be independent or significant and I don't think they meet the criteria for reliable sources, either.Mdtemp (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC) your thoughts on the matter disagree greatly with my own and as you sound so very definite and authoritative in your comments, how come you haven't already voted accordingly? is that the way that you participate on wikipaedia, just by commenting ? should have i not voted yet on the issue ? should i be just passing comments ? Bazatom (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A vote is not obligatory although normally people will place a vote, even if this really isn't a vote. There are a couple of reasons for not voting but only commenting - one being that minds are not made up one way or the other.  The comments usually reflect the issues raised and the hope that more convincing arguments will be presented.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Another burning question is, why do the people who nominate an article for deletion, not have enough conviction to put their name to the act ? are they feared in someway of the comebacks if they signed it, especially if they are regularly nominating this that and the other ? or is it part of the fun being the unknown warrior ? and why if they are so incensed to nominate article after article for deletion do they not vote to delete as often as they seem to freely nominate and comment negatively ? Bazatom (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Umm the nomination here is clearly signed and the delete vote is implied otherwise why would they nominate.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC) mmm that really is not an answer to my question as im not talking about this specific nomination, i want to know for if i decide to nominate an article. and does the same apply thing to the box that is added to the top of an article page ? as the box on this specific article isnt signed ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotokan_Karate_Union

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion. [hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (April 2015) This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2015)

Bazatom (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This really isn't the place to ask these things but you can find out who added what tags into articles by looking at the history. You are not supposed to put signatures within the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

cheers for changing that but i wasn't voting again, i was just stating as i said that "i am still of the opinion to keep" this and it was arrived at after further research on the tip of using acronym was given by Epeefleche. I found those relatively easily and more besides. So I strongly disagree with there is a lack of notability because if they are being quoted enough by various sources and people and they have people who are associated to them in lots of countries who are mentioning them and they are taking part in sports competitions then notability goes with all those things and the length of time that they have existed and the number of members and former members that still refer to them. And on the question of former members they can by disassociation only be classed as independent. Bazatom (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at the edit history differences and when you bold face and capitalize keep, it looks like a vote to everyone else.Mdtemp (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC) got it now thanks Bazatom (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep The subject is notable and interesting. Chunlinc (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (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.