Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Cartmell


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tim Cartmell

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD. The article subject claims notability, however the claims have gone unreferenced for three years. The article should be adequately sourced so the claims can be verified, or it should be deleted. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 18:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find anything about him beyond publications that he himself has written... that's a reluctant delete. The sources are out there, but not necessarily in WP:RS, which is indeed a necessity... --Izno (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:N Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't appear to meet WP:N. The lack of reliable sources coupled with inactivity would indicate a non notable subject. Stormbay (talk)
 * Keep well-known and notable martial artist, martial arts researcher and translator, and martial arts author . "Effortless Combat Throws" in particular is highly regarded. Refernces are easily available in Google:"Nei jia quan: internal martial arts" by Jess O'Brien, where a 38-page chapter is devoted to him ; in "Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey" by Brian Kennedy he is the first of several people cited as Western researchers of the Chinese martial arts . His books and articles are cited frequently (see Google Books and Google Scholar). He was interviewed in Wu Gong Journal, May-June 1998,vol. 3, #15 and has published in the highly respected Journal of Asian Martial Arts (e.g. Throwing Techniques in the Internal Martial Arts: An Elucidation of the Guiding Principle of "Sticking and Following" , Vol. 18 #4) . JJL (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is clearly a notable martial artist. The quantity of written reliable sources about him too justify this being kept. Just needs citations and improvement. Reliable source coverage exists to expand and ref this.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I still don't see this as gravely notable and even if it is the sources are poor at best. Disclaimer: I am the person who PROD'd the article that was contested see Talk:Tim Cartmell for more andyzweb (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm surprised to see the sources described as 'poor'. The two books I cited are from Blue Snake Books, the martial arts imprint of North Atlantic Books (distributed by Random House). If you search Wikipedia for Blue Snake Books you'll find that their works appear as references in articles on a variety of subjects. It isn't a fly-by-night or vanity publisher. (They describe themselves as "presently the largest publisher of internal and historical martial arts books in the world".) One of these books devotes its entire first chapter to Tim Cartmell, and the other describes him as one of the major Western researchers in Chinese martial arts history. That certainly seems like verifiable notability in third-party reliable sources. In addition to that biographical material there is the interview in the Wu Gong Journal of Chinese Martial Arts (since renamed the Journal of Chinese Martial Arts). Can you be more specific about why you feel these sources are not acceptable? JJL (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The only two inline citations included in this article that would allow for verification of the specific and prolific claims made within are 1) in a foreign language and 2) the individual's own website. This is not sufficient for WP:BLP purposes or for supporting notability claims. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 21:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I've only been on Wikipedia for a few months, so I'm not sure of how everything works. The article as written probably deserves to be deleted since the only 2 references are his web site and an Italian copy of his book.  The article's been cited for lack of references for 3 years so it doesn't look like the original author is going to fix it.  However, the sources mentioned by JJL appear to be of good quality.  If the article was rewritten and cited only material from WP:RS, it's probably salvageable. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article needs improvement, certainly, but that is a separate issue from the subject's notability. I am not an expert on the subject, but he appears to meet WPMA/N on criteria 1 (subject of an independent article/documentary) and 5 (author of significant books on his style). Janggeom (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep JJL's findings appear to show notability even if the current article doesn't. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment an article needs to be judged on its current state, not what it could potentially be. As I've reiterated several times in this discussion, there are only two very weak subject-affiliated "references" in this BLP. This has been the case for three years. Every claim of importance is sourced back to the individual's own company. If the reliable sources are not added to the article to both verify the content and also bolster any claim of notability, then it does not meet the requirements for inclusion under WP:BLP, WP:V or WP:N. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 19:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment' if it has potential then Incubation might be an option. --Natet/c 14:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * COmment notability is the issue here; AfD is not article improvement, and there aren't contentious or controversial BLP issues here. Feel free to edit out anything you feel is unsupported, but notability is the issue at AfD and the sources cited establish that. There is no time limit for improvement. JJL (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Since it's notability that appears to be the crux, could you please explain what sources in the article being discussed support the notability claim? I have absolutely no qualms about the article being kept as long as the information that would verify the notability are included in the article, and any unsourced awards etc. were removed (which I could go through should the article be kept). Jezebel's Ponyo shhh  21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Question What about reducing the article to something like "Tim Cartmell is a martial artist best known as an author and translator of martial arts books."? The list of publications would serve as references and the rest of the article could be removed as unsourced.  Then, as time permits, someone could added reliably sourced material. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In my opinion that would be an acceptable solution as the writings would be verifiable as the ISBN numbers are included in the article. The academy he runs could also be included even though it's a primary source as it's simply verifying "he works here". The article could be fleshed out if and when reliable independent sources become available. Jezebel's Ponyo <sup style="color:navy;">shhh  15:22, 2 February 2010 (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.