Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMOK!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Coredesat 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AMOK!

AMOK! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I originally just put some tags on the page, but after some research, I realized that this martial art is certainly not notable, and possibly even a hoax RogueNinjatalk 18:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seems spammy at best, it sounds like they're basically fusing some techniques and giving it a name. Nothing special about this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete in our country, nag-aamok (Running amok) is simply somebody that is very angry. Kidding aside, I doubt that a martial art like this exists or is notable. Joint manipulation is the realm of silat, weapon fighting that of modern arnis and grappling or wrestling that of dumog and buno.---Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, then edit. I don't think it's a hoax, as there is such a thing as Philippine knife fighting. The article, however, seems to me like a school such as "Tapondo" (a type of combat aikido originated from the Philippines) rather than a unique martial arts system. Starczamora (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment knife fighting is under arnis.--Lenticel (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax, advert or just NN, possibly any combination of the above, the bit on physics is making me lean towards hoax but is could be just very bad promo text. --Nate1481( t/c) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep legitimate system that has rising interest; many seminars being held on it worldwide (search for "Tom Sotis" AMOK). Has an article in Masters of the Blade [1]. JJL (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • When I do the search you mentioned I come up with: Websites run by his organzation, message boards, and places he sells things, but nothing that satisfies WP:V RogueNinjatalk 17:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The search verifies that he and his org. are international and active, does it not? I was using that only to verify that there is active interest in AMOK! as evidenced by seminars. The book verifies its existence and being selected for inclusion in the book is an indication of some measure of notability. JJL (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- per JL argument vis masters of the blade, there is some evidence it's notable, and lack of apparent English sources for now should not prevent it from continuing, I suspect more sources can be adduced with time. also, the creator of the page, who has been around since 2004 it seems, while having a very infrequent posting tally, appears more like a single subject contributor, not a hoaxer. What sort of hoaxer has so few posts in 4 years, consistently posting an average of 1 per month for a handful of articles?JJJ999 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Needs some secondary sources. as the article stands now, delete. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Reads like spam, the links point (with some difficulty) to websites all but independent. It looks like a minor fighting technique somebody is trying to advertise, and this is not the place to do that. Goochelaar (talk) 10:12, 31 January 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.