Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5 Section Taijiquan (五段太極拳)

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 (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5 Section Taijiquan (五段太極拳)

5 Section Taijiquan (五段太極拳) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Image:5 Section logo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Notability. The original article was prodded once (the template was removed by author of article with no discussion), has no secondary sources, and reads very much like an advertisement (which I have toned down somewhat}. I have heard of the instructors involved, but as a specialist in the field myself that is no guarantee of notability that will satisfy Wikipedia. Also, I suspect a WP:COI from the original author. I give this to the community to decide. Bradeos Graphon (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am neutral on whether the article should be kept overall, but the current title will have to be changed if the article is kept. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), Chinese characters should not appear in the article title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• From the author of 5 Section Taijiquan (五段太極拳):
  • With each prompting for a change to the article I have responded.
  • I was unaware that the template should not be removed once revisions had been made. It remains unclear to me who should be notified.
  • At this juncture it still remains unclear who to notify. I will email to Bradeos Graphon directly to ask for advise.
  • The content is legitimate as the style of taijiquan involved is a legitimate variation with a real history and is practised by enthusiasts in many countries. This article should be included.
  • As to the charge that the article reads like an advertisement, this has also been changed. If, in someone's judgement, the problem remains, I would appreciate the opportunity to rectify it rather than have the article deleted. If Bradeos Graphon would be kind enough as to assist me with this I'd appreciate it.
  • Regarding WP:COI (conflict of interest), the article, like many is intended to be a starting point for others interested in this topic to enlarge and expand upon.
  • Regarding Chinese (五段太極拳) in the title: I was unaware that this was not allowed and would like rename the article as simply ' 5 Section Taijiquan ' (which was in fact its original title).
• —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlowlySurely (talk • contribs) 2007-12-18 08:19:41
• Delete no evidence of meeting WP:N. Newly created style. JJL (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —JJL (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The founder is probably notable, but as always, notability is not transferable. Otherwise, there are no assertions of of notable practitioners (other than the founder), competitive successes, or any influence on anyone or anything else of any kind). Though the article states that "5 Section Taijiquan" is taught in a variety of countries, the websites of the schools linked to support this are anything but definitive about their relationship with Sam Masich's teaching. Combined with its recent creation, my vote is delete for non-notability. Bradford44 (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN, Minimal English sourcing (& no footnotes) article started life as an advert rm till sourcing can be found.--Nate1481( ^t/_c) 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)de

• Keep and Review The article is young and the author is constructively responsive to criticism. Heavily mark the article with its deficiencies and review it in 6 months. don't bite! jmcw (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2007 (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.