Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Styles of silat


 * 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   no consensus. There seems to be a general agreement that this article shouldn't stay as it is, but no agreement on exactly what to do about it. Discussions about conversion to a list (or other solutions) can continue on the article's talk page. Renominate for deletion in a few months if desired. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Styles of silat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is superfluous with content being able to be merged to main article. Full of non-authoritative references, article style poor, no clarity on the article. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and it is getting a bit to detailed for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not sure deletion is the answer here.  Merging definatly is not.  Articles like these often serve a purpose in that they redirect the clutter away from the main article - which is also in danger of degenerating.  That said the article needs a serious re-write.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Another Comment I say be bold and convert the entire article to a List with no text (like List of Martial arts).  Right now vast sections are copy pasted from elsewhere making it a copyright issue.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree--make this article into a list. If any of the styles are notable, then create separate articles on them. Jakejr (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Gong   show  08:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep= Definitely something to this. I suspect we would have better luck finding hits on Malay websites, such as this . PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert to list I agree with Peter and Jakejr. Portland's source just supports their position--Pentjak Silat already has an article.  Either the style has enough for its own article or it doesn't. Mdtemp (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Comment I'm not sure whether to vote to delete this article or convert it into a list. I am sure that this article shouldn't remain as it is.  Large parts of it are unsourced.  I think a list might be more useful than outright deletion. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 22.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  16:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Teaching about the different styles of popular martial arts is well within the ambition of an encyclopedia. I suggest we keep the page: perhaps this debate will have encouraged editors to clean-up the article, remove unreferenced comments, add a well-deserved general/historical description and references, and improve the style. Transforming the article into a list and thus deleting large portions of its contents seems a bit drastic. Alfy32 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! As a new editor you might want to read some of WP's basic guidelines.  In particular I'd recommend the ones on notability WP:N, reliable sources WP:RS, and verifiability WP:V.  As for your comments on this particular aritcle, I would point out that it's been tagged as needing sources for 6 years so I doubt this discussion will have any impact.  The only recent additions are for the section on pencak silat and that style already has its own article.  That's my point--if a style has sources it should have its own article and if there aren't any sources it doesn't meet the criteria to be on Wikipedia.  This article just lumps everything together, including the styles that already have their own articles.  A list might be useful, but largely unsourced sections do not show notability. Mdtemp (talk) 15:21, 25 January 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.