Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haim Gidon (2nd nomination)

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 No consensus. Avi 18:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haim Gidon

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Haim Gidon Articles for deletion/Haim Gidon (2nd nomination)
Haim Gidon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability tagged for 9 months; appears to have been recreated as this is the 2nd AfD --Nate1481( t/c) 13:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481( t/c) 13:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Krav maga is notable and the Israeli Krav maga Association he heads is one of the main organizations I think the case for notability is strong enough. Perhaps a few more third party citations would be good but he is pretty main stream and with 1500 GHITs I wonder why the tag is there.Peter Rehse 14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 19:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Krav maga is becoming very popular in the US and if its Wikipedia entry is true, Haim Gidon is the most important person; only he can grant a Black Belt. I agree with Peter Rehse that there could be better source material, and perhaps those who practice Krav maga should come up with those sources. FireGuard 11:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment The Krav maga article itself is tagged as having the same problem. By the way it says that the black belt awarding is within that one organization not Kav Maga in general. Also Krav maga has been notable for well over 20 years.Peter Rehse 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Corpx. --Aarktica 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I found it useful and informative. Fsamuels 15:06, 2 August 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.