Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zui quan


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  07:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Zui quan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prodded as hoax, but prod removed as the article was supposedly prodded before. However, I can find no proof that it was. The article is a clear hoax, as Googling turned up no mention of "zui quan" in the aforementioned sources, nor in any other reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Would need Chinese speakers knowledgible on the subject to weigh in. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  06:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Appears to be cultural joke deriving from Drunken Master. See the Chinese language wikipedia article which is also tagged as "hoax" and relies heavily on the movie. The hoax itself might be notable, but this article isn't about the hoax. --Pontificalibus (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding the prod; your prod was removed by an ip then readded as shown here which is not allowed Atlantic306 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I've found a publisher purporting to sell books on drunken boxing: https://www.plumpub.com/sales/kungfu/collbk_drunkboxing.htm According to them, it is not a distinct style; but many styles use forms which imitate a drunkard's movements as a training stage. Like the drunken monkey form of monkey style boxing, no actual drunkenness is involved; instead, the boxer consciously and soberly imitates a drunkard's movements. Is this a part of the hoax as well? Or are these books for real? I'd like someone with knowledge of kung fu styles to evaluate them before we consider deleting the article. Texas Dervish (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Those books appear to be self published. I get only 323 unique hits on Google, most of which seem to be Wikipedia mirrors or false positives. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator Ten Pound Hammer. I'm sure this style of Chinese Martial Arts doesn't exist for real.98.209.191.37 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - the style has largely been mythified in pop culture, but its notability as a popular myth is undeniable. It has been depicted in numerous popular kung fu movies. -Zanhe (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the crux of the problem. The article talks about this being an actual style not a myth.  The closest to reality is something that may be taught within an actual style as an exercise to break away from rigidity.  Treating myth as fact is a hoax.PRehse (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're talking about questionable content, which should be purged from the article. However, the topic itself is not a hoax and the article should not be deleted. -Zanhe (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed a chunk of questionable material. -Zanhe (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was talking about something more fundamental - the whole thrust of the article. I have not voted yet but I really do see a problem.PRehse (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this problem plagues most kungfu-related articles. However, AfD is about notability of the topic, not quality of the article. Zui quan, minus the myth, is still a popular style of Chinese martial arts, and there are a significant number of Chinese books about it from serious publishers, such as Chinese Zui Quan, Zui Quan, and Overview of Chinese Martial Arts: Volume 9. Unfortunately, none of them are available online. -Zanhe (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * delete There's no supporting evidence that this is an actual kung-fu style. It is something people seem to know about because of the movies, but the sources given are youtube videos along with non-independent and non-RS sources.Sandals1 (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess you missed my edit adding sources as well as my comment above. This IS an actual kungfu style, and many books have been published about it. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The links to Googlebooks in your edit don't show me significant independent coverage nor do the sources in the article.Sandals1 (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The problem seems to be that there's a lack of reliable, independent sources supporting the claim this is an ancient martial arts style. Many of the article's sources are youtube videos or published by those who claim to know and teach drunken styles.  As I said at the discussion at WT:WPMA, I know wushu instructors who teach a drunken form to some of their better students, but I've not heard any of them claim that drunken forms make up a style, much less an ancient one.  Even the book review article from Kung Fu magazine says things like "according to legend", which is hardly proof--it's essentially heresay and insufficient to show WP:GNG is met.  Zahne says that it's about the "notability of the topic, not the quality of the article", but there's a lack of independent evidence showing this even exists as "an ancient style and its origins are mainly traced back to the famous Buddhist and Daoist sects".  I think the fact that the Chinese WP article on this topic has no sources and is considered to be of questionable authenticity is telling.  Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2017 (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.