Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional Kendō


 * 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   merge to Kendo.  MBisanz  talk 07:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Kendō

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

Recommending as it seems to contain nothing that the normal article Kendo doesn't have. They even use the same terms and photos to illustrate the points. Seems like a content fork to me, and I can't see why it needs to be a separate article. They are even spelt the same in Japanese. Canterbury Tail  talk  18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Probably an original research. The word kendo is not used before 1920s. See, , and . The creator and all the references mistake some schools of Kenjutsu as the origin or old type of Kendo. Oda Mari (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  -- Nate1481 13:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article seems to be driven by a contributor/creator with a strong POV that is reflected in the writhing. There is nothing new, other than the references to unpublished thesis and braod references to well known budo writers/researchers, but with the POV twist, attempting to justify the the argument of the creator of the article.Kendo 66 14:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)
 * Merge and rd as a POVFORK. JJL (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Week keep is it an article which has forked or a style which has forked? Some of the references seem to indicate the latter. --Salix (talk): 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, or alternatively, cleanup and Merge into Kendo (and partially into Kenjutsu, if deemed necessary.)
 * I appreciate there are some people making efforts not to let the legacies of Japanese swordmanship end up survive only as a sport. However, I do not think it is a good reason to have an article on Wikipedia under this name.


 * There is no such universal term as "traditional kendo" or "classic kendo" to represent a style or form of kendo. Instead, it is (and has to be) explained each time it is referred to with such name, and the result is that it differs from person to person, orgnazation to organization. This is particularly an important reason why Wikipedia, as a project having to rely on externals sources, not to use the term as an article name. Right next time another editor adds some contents citing another source, it may as well be using yet another definition. This confusion certainly exisits, and it is actually described by Professor Friday in his book cited in the article. (Read the Introduction, that'll do.)


 * One thing that has to be yet stressed is that when master Donn F. Draeger (not Dann Draeger as seen in the article) referred to the "traditional" Abe ryu kendo, it was in this context:


 * "Neither classical kendo, as it was first designed and taught by the founder of Abe Ryu in the seventeenth century, nor kendo as it is practiced today is either a fighting art or a pure sport. The most experienced devotees of modern kendo consider it to be primarily a system of spiritual descipline...." Donn Draeger, Modern Bujutsu and Budo. (Quote from Kenyu Volume 7, number 5, May 1993 - for convenience.)


 * Read as we can, it was not to draw a solid border line between the swordmanship pursuers of Edo period and those of today, but instead, it was to emphasize they share the same spirit, regardless of whatever denomination they utilize. Thus my opinion as mentioned on top. --Mantokun (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge any sourced content into Kendō. No justification for fork. Bongo  matic  01:46, 28 April 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.