Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tae Jitsu


 * 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 Redirect to Taijutsu - it's not the same thing, but is a likely mispelling. This article on this particular style can be recreated if it become notable. Yomangani talk 01:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Tae Jitsu
Not notable. The actual term means body work and has a separate wikipedia entry see Taijutsu. As such this enty is just advertisment for some school. Please see the articles talk page. Peter Rehse 06:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. First, the article is not an advertisment for some school, several months ago, I saw that the article had no external links (and was tagged with a "references" tag), so I did a quick google search and added the links to 2 websites that described this martial art. This was before I had a username. If you think this article is an advertisment for the external links, then you are mistaken, becuase that was not my intention when I added them (I added them to provide sources for the article). Second, a google search seems to incicate that Tae Jitsu is, in fact an actual, indepentant martial art, even the articles talk page has someone who says they hold a black belt in it, and the two external links belong to two completly different websites, both saying that Tae Jitsu is an authenic art. as far as notability, what makes this any less notable than any other martial arts article? If it's an authenic art, then it should be kept. Furthermore, "Taijutsu" is a martial arts term while Tae Jitsu is a martial art. I really don't see how a martal arts term can be compared with a martial art (the two may sound similar but theres a difference between a term and an actual art) MasterGreenLantern 14:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition to my above comments, I would also like to add that This site describes several different martial arts styles, and includes Tae Jitsu (about half way throgh). Which is a further indication of this style being authenic. MasterGreenLantern 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to taijutsu (except the disgusting Fictional practitioners section). Kavadi carrier 14:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Merge and redirect. --MaNeMeBasat 14:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect, do not merge. Taijutsu seems to be a hand-to-hand style for ninja, but this "Tae Jitsu" (Jitsu being a common western misspelling of jutsu, and the whole phrase being a bastardized mix of Korean and Japanese) thing doesn't seem notable enough to garner any third-party reliable sources.  ColourBurst 15:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many websites that describe Tae Jitsu as a hybrid martial art that combines Tae Kwon Do with other arts, making it a new, seperate (but still hybrid) martial art. What makes Tae Jitsu any less notable than AMOK!, Zen Do Kai, Vacón, and all the other mybrid martial arts? If Tae Jitsu is an authenic martial art (A hybrid, but still a seperate, indepentiant art, as I think I have shown in my orginal comments) than it should be kept. I don't understand why anyone would want to merge or redirect to TaiJustsu, when Taisutsu and Tai Jitsu are completely diferent. There are many websites, This site, for example, as well as the two external links in the article and other sites (Try a google search) all of which seem to show that Tae Jitsu is an actual (Hybrid) martial art, which people actually study and practice (even the articles talk page has someone who is a blackbelt in Tae Jitsu). So I still stand by my original vote to keep.MasterGreenLantern 19:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS and understand why we don't tend to use websites as reliable sources. Specifically, Look out for false claims of authority. Websites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web.  If you can convince me that the credentials of the WIF (whose website you mention) is sound, it will help your case.  ColourBurst 19:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't just mention one website, I also mentioned the two websites in the External links section. Additionally, this site, from the International Combat Martial Arts Unions Association, describes Tae Jitsu as a "Scientific street fighting approach". As far as proving the credentials of the WIF, I am unsure how to do that. But the fact is that there are several different schools that teach Tae Jitsu, and I found websites that list or mention people who practice it, including this site, which talks about a kickboxer who is also an expert and instructor in Tae Jitsu. Also, I still want to know what makes Tae Jitsu any less notable than AMOK!, Zen Do Kai, Vacón, and the many other similar martial arts articles. MasterGreenLantern 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. An article should stand on its own merits, not because it's similar to another article on Wikipedia.  Also read User:Uncle G/On notability which is an essay that describes the notability guideline in an objective way.  However, I'm going to go ask the Martial Arts Wikiproject what they think about this, because it's a fairly specialist area (however, this article specifically is about a modern martial art and there should be verifiable reliable sources, see if you can find books on the subject)  Again, the main question to ask is, how do we know if the WIF and the ICMAUA are really experts in the field of martial arts?  (You can ask the question about the other three articles, and if they don't pass either, they should be listed for deletion.)  ColourBurst 21:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge for non-notability and lack of authoritative sources. There is no evidence suggesting that the fictional depiction of "Tae Jitsu" in Family Guy is linked to an authentic school, rather than using a Japanese-sounding term. It looks like the art is taught out of a single school as a hybrid art, but there is no notable presence of it elsewhere. --Scb steve 22:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is more than one Tae Jitsu school. There are schools in the US and UK. (the external links section links to two seperate schools).MasterGreenLantern 22:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I think User:MasterGreenLantern really feels strongly about this so I propose we hold off for a week to give him a chance to address the concerns in the article rather than here and elsewhere.  The article itself (not the links) has to make the case for notability, it does not.  I suggest using Hakko Ryu as an example of a minimal article.  Who founded the art, when was it founded, where is it practiced, who's in charge?  Of course if it is expaned beyond that great.  I put a few tags into the article itself.Peter Rehse 09:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless the article in significantly expanded (e.g. origins, how it's different) it dose not provide any useful info.
 * I'm trying to do some research and gather information right now. I'll see if I can expand the article in a few days. I honestly know almost nothing about Tae Jitsu (personally, my favorite martial arts are Jeet Kune Do and Systema, and I don't know much about martial arts beyond those two). But I'll see what I can do about expanding the article (unless someone more knowledgeable shows up). MasterGreenLantern 22:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I have spent the past week trying to get information about the history and background of Tae Jitsu, but unfortunatly, the only sources of information I can find are the two websites in the external links section (the two Tae Jitsu schools), and the websites I already mentioned above. So I can't find any independant sources, and everyone here seems to think that the school websites are not acceptable sources, so I am unsure how to procede. I sent Emails to both schools 5 days ago requesting additional information, but they have not responded. I thought about expanding the article using information from both Tae Jitsu schools websites, but as I just said, it seems they are not acceptable sources. So I am unsure of about what to do next. MasterGreenLantern 19:47, 10 November 2006 (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.