Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen Do Kai


 * 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   Keep (non-admin closure), The presence of fact tags is not a reason for deletion. Ruslik (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Zen Do Kai

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

Not notable,1 ref, to nothing, no sourced assertion of notability Nate1481(t/c) 09:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.   -- Nate1481(t/c) 09:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While in a current state of too much unsourced information, it appears that while this martial art may be minimal in popularity, searches on google and google news certainly establish that it exists, people are active in it, and there is a level of reliable sourced information documenting it. Sources like this are a place to start, many more "pay-per-view" newspaper sources I found on a simple google news search. Also, I see "Zen Do Kai is a simplified street fighting art with clubs located across the whole of Australia and New Zealand..." as an assertion of notability, although it would need a source. Article currently has promotional issues, a large amount of info should likely be removed and sourced work should be started from a more stub-like state. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a sufficiently widespread art. Article needs work. JJL (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete too many citation needed tags Sceptre (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the two external links are to the same site. I am not convinced that this article will find the needed verifiabilty. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you looked? There seems to be enough non trivial coverage when doing google news searches. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It would appear that this is a well-known Australian martial art. Too many citations needed tags: one tag per sentence would solve the problem. The article needs work and references. jmcw (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2008 (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.