Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Chung Do Kwan 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   no consensus. Actually, there is a weak consensus to merge but no consensus for a target. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

United States Chung Do Kwan Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is no reliable third person information to assert notability and does not pertain to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per references available at Edward B. Sell. According to this, it was the largest Tae Kwon Do organization in the United States at one time.  --Cerebellum (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —Astudent0 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find any independent sources that show notability. Claim of being the largest was in an interview with a local paper so I'm not sure about the verifiability of it.  Now it pales in size to organizations like the ATA. Astudent0 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Edward B. Sell The organization is already mentioned on his page, although the claim there that the organization "currently contains nearly 250,000 members" needs verification. An organization that large would certainly be notable on its own, but that number seems awfully large to me. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Chung Do Kwan ("Later Graduates" section); just a suggestion. Janggeom (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am wiling to accept merge as an alternative it just clearly doesn't deserve a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:48, 28 September 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.