Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Martial Arts Games


 * 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 no prejudice against speedy renomination. Review of the arguments set forth show quite a bit of debate on whether or not the subject is notable. After considering both sides, I found that most of the deletion !votes indicated lack of notability due to lack of reliable sources, and the keep !votes indicated there may be more reliable sources and notability than once thought, even providing links. As such, I think we're at a consensus deadlock here, and I would recommend that some real work be put into this article to flesh it out and add some of the sources conferring notability to the article. Otherwise, I can see this article being speedily renominated and this discussion happening all over again. (non-admin closure)  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 15:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

World Martial Arts Games

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a 3 sentence article with no indication of significance and no independent sources. Jakejr (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Claims of notability are not supported by references.  As a "top martial arts event" held over several years there is surprisingly little coverage.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I have to question the claim of being a top martial arts event when the only sources are primary. Papaursa (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The city newspaper of Richman Canada talks about it. Read far more information at  which says "The International Olympic Committee has officially granted Patronage for the 2014 TAFISA World Martial Arts Games."  They are a member of TAFISA   D r e a m Focus  07:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  06:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks significant coverage. Even the sources mentioned above have only 1 independent source and that's an announcement in the local paper about the upcoming event. Mdtemp (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Limited to primary sources, page content is limited by length and vagueness, and doesn't show the significance of this event. Upjav (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I was initially reviewing this for close but after reviewing 's statement, I conducted my own WP:BEFORE search and came to the conclusion that the event is notable. To avoid super-voting, I am adding my argument to the keep camp. I would like to point out this is being described as an inaugural event and is set to take place on September 3-7 -- it hasn't happened yet. However, we cannot ignore the fact that there is significant coverage on the teams being sent; looking through a SET there are hundreds of results covering teams being sent, , , , , . The Richmond Review reported, "[the event will showcase 700 athletes from 30 countries around the world.]". For me at least, this indicates a very large scale competition. I would also like to point out that much of the debate would perhaps represent surmountable problems in sourcing or the article state -- I do acknowledge the notability concerns as well though. Mkdw talk 15:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It has happened before, just not as as part of TAFISA.   D r e a m Focus  17:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware. I repeat myself, "this is being described as an inaugural event". You literally provided the source that stated, "". This further highlights my point that stating it's occurred in the past and has not received significant coverage only proves the rationale that in the past it was not notable. Now that it's part of the TAFISA and essentially a different event, there is an argument for notability now. Mkdw talk 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As martial arts events go, 700 competitors is not that large. I'm sure that there are plenty of articles in local papers about competing individuals, but I don't think that shows the competition is notable.  The event has been run since 2006 so if it's truly a globally significant event I'd think it would be easy to find plenty of sources over the cousre of 9 annual events.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The event previously was not part of the TAFISA. Additionally, per WP:EVENTS, an event does not need to be "globally significant" to be considered notable. My rationale for the coverage on the teams was to demonstrate WP:DIVERSE. The teams are part of the event. Mkdw talk 22:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that the article says this has been "one of the top multi-disciplinary martial arts events worldwide." If so, coverage shouldn't be an issue.  Adding TAFISA to the event's name doesn't make it a new event and being connected to TAFISA doesn't make it notable since notability is not inherited.  It still lacks significant independent coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * An event can still hold that title and not necessarily have coverage issue problems. You're making the assumption that if it's a top level competition, therefore, all top level competitions receive an abundance of coverage. Secondly, actually, yes it's association with TAFISA does make it a new event, especially when it's being billed as the "1st TAFISA World Martial Arts Games". We know nothing about the format or how significantly the event has changed now with the involvement of the TAFISA to justify saying this year is a continuation of previous. So before all these assumptions are being made, I think it's important to review the existing cited information when presenting a delete rationale. Mkdw talk 19:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hi. For an article to be kept, it must have at least something in the way of hinting the reader towards notability. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what all the links found do. Notice the thing I quoted about the Olympic Committee?  Plus its part of TAFISA, which is run under UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).    D r e a m Focus  19:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, Mkdw has presented significant coverage, enough to meet WP:GNG. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 12:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of what he presented were articles from local papers about teenagers who will be competing. I'm not sure that qualifies as significant independent coverage of the games themselves.  Also, claiming notability through TAFISA/UNESCO seems like notability through relationship and notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I have a few comments about some of the above posts. According to the organization's website TAFISA was its patron (whatever that means) for the 2013 event as well.  As for its significance I compared it to the Irish Open, which is sanctioned by WAKO.  Last year the Irish Open had over 2700 fighters (not counting forms competitors) from 5 continents.  That dwarfs this competition in size and notability is not inherited by being connected to TAFISA or the IOC.  I still don't see significant independent coverage of this event, except for the article in the local paper.  That's not enough to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 