Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Yates (martial artist)


 * 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. Shereth 17:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Steven Yates (martial artist)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable individual. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Unable to find substantial coverage of individual or "rough and tumble" method of self-defense. A few GHits (non-independent) and no-GNEWS entries. ttonyb1 (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Upon checking, added for consideration at the same time:
 *  - article on a fringe type of martial art, or possibly a brand name, taught by Steve Yates. Written by same author
 *  - Steve Yates' partner (noted for completeness: speedy deleted WP:CSD)
 * FT2 (Talk 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have added some sources to the articles talk page as possible evidence of notability. --Steven Yates (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete both unless good evidence of notability added. Martial arts schools are ten a penny; no disrespect to the founder or author, but anyone can create their own name or brand or style of fighting method, call it what they like. Notability requires evidence this isn't all it is, that it is in fact taken note of by the wider world with significant coverage of the person or topic, in credible independent reliable sources, and not just due to usual self-publicity, brief and usual mentions (which "anything that exists" will usually get), etc. A higher standard of evidence than usual is also required (for me at least), to overcome the issue/presumption of WP:COI or use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. The articles are reasonably written, but as it stands the topic is fatally flawed due to a lack of solid evidence of significant independent attention and historical notability, when examined thoroughly in depth and with an eye towards the possibility of promotional activity. FT2 (Talk 16:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely unsourced biography --Nate1481 11:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the martial artist's page for lack of notability, and the art's page for the same reason (unless more detailed evidence of its use by the military is adduced) and its essay nature. JJL (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I have reviewed the sources provided (see AFD talk page#Review of proposed sources). FT2 (Talk 00:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've mulled this over for a while and I'm going to have to go with a weak delete, without prejudice to re-create if some better sources can be found. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2009 (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.