Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jitsu Foundation


 * 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. With a tendency to keep as sources were found during the AfD.  Sandstein  17:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Jitsu Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Questionable organisation with no independent sources to justify the article. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —Papaursa (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I found no independent sources to support this organization's notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent support found for claims of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep over 100 Clubs within the UK, that should be more than enough. DrJunge (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I found no independent sources covering this organization, so it seems to fail WP:V. If you have some good reliable sources I'd be happy to change my vote.  I also don't put much stock in self-reported organization sizes since my experience is that they're usually grossly inflated. Papaursa (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – There are several references to the foundation in the external links section. The article claims to be involved with many clubs across the UK, while many clubs across the UK attest their affiliation to the organisation. If one discounts the references from any club affiliated with the foundation then one arrives at a paradox; namely that the larger and more influential the foundation becomes, the fewer acceptable reference sources there are. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  14:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no luck with the external links finding significant independent coverage. Also, I disagree with your premise about size.  If an organization is large and significant enough it will be mentioned in articles or books about the art, not just on the web sites of participating dojos.  I have nothing against the Jitsu Foundation, I just am not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true that the technical skill used to reference is quite low, but many of them are fine. For example, one reference linked to the main page of a local newspaper instead of the article's archive page. All I had to do was type the article title in the website's search bar and I got the story. For example, this article (published in July 2000) says that The Jitsu Foundation developed from a club set up in Keighley 42 years ago, and in July 2000 had about 3,000 exponents worldwide. I've corrected the reference formatting accordingly. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The Telegraph and Argus coverage would appear to satisfy the coverage requirements to meet notability - if some more coverage could be found that would be excellent!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:37, 24 May 2011 (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.