Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commando Krav Maga

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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commando Krav Maga

Commando Krav Maga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable sub-art. Primary only sources, IP keeps adding advert text seems to have been created as an advert & stubified when this was removed. Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, obviously created as advert. There is a similar project in the articles Kapap and Lotar, which are both notable, but suffer incessant advertizing vandalism. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - spam. Rami R 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nominator. -- Nudve (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Moni Aizik is reasonably well-known but CKM less so (and the term is somewhat generic). JJL (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• redir - Notable topic ... but only warrents a mention in main Krav Maga Article due to its near zero chance of expanding beyond a 2 sentence & 3 Self-published sources, stub. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

'comment While I can see the logic, think deletion is better to avoid the IP simply reading the advert. Redirect is not really necessary as the search will catch it. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete under CSD#A1; I can barely tell what the topic is even about from reading the article; the article only contains two sentences and a couple of links. It is 50% unreferenced. Clearly eligible for CSD. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

keep, although i feel we sometimes have too much coverage of jewish topics, this one seems notable. its a unique discipline that many people practice.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If you could add some sourced material of that it would help greatly! --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• i'm affraid i'm not interested enough to do that.Myheartinchile (talk) 06:45, 3 June 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.