Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systema


 * 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   Keep but merge somewhere or not. The articles need merging into one but there is no consensus on which one it shoukd be. That discussion dosn't need an afd to drive it. Spartaz Humbug! 16:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Systema

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's no notability in reliable sources. Russian version was deleted because of this. Akim Dubrow (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into Russian martial arts as the sources seem quite thin. Warden (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Systema has made quite a splash in the martial arts world even though (in my opinion) there has been a lot of hyperbole.  There are two third party reliable references in the article now and I am sure more could be found.  I suppose merging is an option  but I also wonder if Systema is actually Ryabko's Systema and if so a Redirect to that is more in order.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The reference to Black Belt's article is a fake, there's no such page and no such article in the journal. The Malaysian article is mainly an advertising, so it's not independent. No other sources present. We in ru-wiki made a search for sources on this topic and we've found no reliable sources, unlike Retuinskih's System ROSS, on which we've found many sources and keep the article. So Ryabko's Systema is also deletion candidate, but I don't know how to merge its deletion proposal into this page. --Akim Dubrow (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your remark "The reference to Black Belt's article is a fake, there's no such page and no such article in the journal. "  is an index to systema articles. I find the systema articles       . Could you explain again why you think there are no reliable sources? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean that "Systema Martial Arts: Ancient Russian Warrior Techniques Used To Train Red Special Forces" referenced from the article does not exist and the other notes in the "Black Belt" do not cover the article topic enough to make it reliable. But I've come here only to point it out, not to fight for en-wiki quality =) That's up to you now. --Akim Dubrow (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article "Systema Martial Arts: Ancient Russian Warrior Techniques Used To Train Red Special Forces" probably does not exist, but there is definitely an article in Black belt magazine called "Russian Martial Art: Is Systema the fiercest fighting style on Earth?". The name of this article, as well as photo of well-known Systema practitioner, Vladimir Vasiliev, are ob the cover of Black Belt magazine issue for August-September 2013. This article takes 2-3 pages, and it describes Systema in sufficient details to write an extensive article. Unfortunately, it's not in open access for everyone, but this is not required by Wikipedia rules for proving notability. АндрейДВласов (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am also nominating the following related pages because of the above reason. I actually have heard much more of Ryabko than Retuinskih so my opinion above still stands.  The latter article could do with a bit of clean-up - to me it does not feel much better.
 * Peter Rehse (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about Systema to really comment on it. I did review the article and remove a large amount of information that was based on very unreliable sources.diff--Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is the hyperbole I was talking about.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete both Lack the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge all variants into this article I did some more research and it looks like there are enough articles on Systema (in all its variations) to meet WP:GNG, but I don't think any single variant has enough sourcing. The articles I came across often just talk about Systema--it's like just talking about karate, it encompasses all the subgroups.Mdtemp (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree Ryabko's Systema sounds like Kano's judo. One article describing the various systems would be easier to reference/establish notability. jmcw (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Added few more citations to the article. There's perfect matching criteria for WP:MANOTE: over 140 schools over the world (see http://systemaryabko.com/en/locations/29894f42b132bc6de558236418.html ), major martial arts like Black belt magazine, Aikido journal not only mention Systema, but write extensive blogs about it. The Black Belt Magazine has even featured one of the most famous Systema practitionists, Vladimir Vasiliev, on its cover, and that issue does contain the article about Systema. The fact that Malaysian journal likes Systema does not contradict Wikipedia rules, as long as they are not affiliated - and they are, apparently, not. What I do support is to merge it with Ryabki's Systema. "Systema" actually refers to many slightly different martial arts like Systema Ryabko, ROSS (the first S stands for Systema), Systema Kadochnikova, etc. But so far, the information in this Systema article refers only to Ryabko's systema, so it makes sense to merge them. АндрейДВласов (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or redirect. The MA Project usually accepts a single article in a leading magazine as sufficient to establish notability. Systema has a section in Black Belt magazine with regular articles prepared by one of their editors. I welcome the nominator to our project and I invite him to more actively participate in our project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts. I recommend him to look over our article cleanup project WikiProject Martial arts/Article Review to see how we have cared about the quality of the articles here and to get a feeling for the community standards. jmcw (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into Russian martial arts. That article would benefit by providing a more comprehensive description of various schools of technique. There is not enough in this article to justify a stand alone. – S. Rich (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Systema Besides the Black Belt articles mentioned by jmcw, there were articles on Systema in Budo International (Feb. 2003), a 2005 issue of the Journal of Asian Martial Arts, and this year's April and May issues of Martial Arts Illustrated. The articles I've read don't tend to specify specific variations of Systema, so I would agree with the earlier comments by Mdtemp and jmcw about merging Ryabko's Systema and Retuinskih's System ROSS into this article.  I don't think those articles show significant independent coverage of the specific variants, but help support the notability of systema in general. Papaursa (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 *  Merge Systema and Systema Ryabko  and  leave ROSS alone. Systema Ryabko has enough notability on its own, as well as ROSS. All references in Systema article speak about Ryabko's Systema, so it makes sense to merge Systema and Ryabko's Systema. АндрейДВласов (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: What has been established so far is that Systema and Ryabko's Systema is the same thing, Systema has two reliable sources at the moment, and Ryabko's Systema has none. At the time being, there is no consensus in the discussion whether the two articles should be merged and left in peace, or both should be merged into Russian martial arts. Addressing in particular this point would be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the sources mentioned by both jmcw and myself earlier in this discussion are sufficient to show Systema is notable enough to merit its own article. Papaursa (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Papaursa that the quantity of sources justifies an independent article for systema as for Sambo (martial art) jmcw (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree - merge Systema and Ryabko's Systema into Ryabko's Systema, and don't merge it to Russian martial arts. Ryabko's Systema has enough notability on its own. АндрейДВласов (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree: merge to 'systema' as the common usage in English. jmcw (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the merge should be into Systema, which would be the common search term. Far more people have heard of heard of Systema and most would have no idea who Ryabko is.  Ryabko's Systema should be redirected there.Mdtemp (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, merging to 'systema' works, but we probably should include mentions about other martial arts. The point is that there are several 'systema's in Russia: http://russianspetsnaz.com/ http://kadochnikovsystem.com/ - all of them are very similar, claim to have origin in Middle-ages warrior techniques and have similar main principles. At some point, every one of them tried to brand their martial art as "Systema" - and on their websites you can occasionally find "Systema". So far, Mikhail Ryabko was more successfull in the West in branding his "Systema". So, if we merge it to Systema, we should include something like "This article refers to Systema Ryabko, but Systema may refer to Systema Kadichnikov or Systema Spetznaz" with appropriate links. АндрейДВласов (talk) 00:51, 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.