Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Empire Martial Arts Association


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Empire Martial Arts Association

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

I'm not too familiar with martial arts, but this organisation seems non-notable to me. Article is newly created, so don't bite. Abductive (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per nom.; no meaningful rationale given for deletion, and barely week-old created article. JJL (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources were found. Abductive (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Memebership by notable people or association with notable orgs don't confer notability. No assertion of notability for the association itself. Fails WP:ORG and WP:MANOTE.
 * Speedy keep don't bite. The web references are primary but there are notable people involved: the article has a chance to develop if given time. Review in 6 months. Give the new author and the new article a chance. jmcw (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's spam. Abductive (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Spam can be tasty if well prepared. jmcw (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 months? There is either notability or not. There is either coverage or not. I'd submit to you that if it takes 6 months to find sources, that is a strong indicator of lack of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed: it is notability or not. There is coverage or not. But there is a queueing problem: it takes a few moments to propose deleting an article but several hours/days to determine the worth of an article. I did tag the article about sources and notability: that took just a few moments. jmcw (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete dime-a-dozen organisation, without independent attestations of notability. possibly speedy per WP:CSD Ohconfucius (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no assertions of notability, no independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited so just because notable people are involved, doesn't make this automatically notable itself. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comment regarding lack of assertion of notability for association itself.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 04:03, 23 June 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.