Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyokugenryu Karate

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 per overwhelming consensus. LeGrande (or anyone else), I understand your rationale, and if you have any reliable, secondary sources from your google searching that you feel verify and confirm the notability of this subtopic of a fictional series, hit me up on my talkpage, and I'll userfy a copy of this for you so you can improve it/restore it properly. Until then, consensus here is to delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kyokugenryu Karate

Kyokugenryu Karate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails to meet the wikipedia general notability guideline since there is no significant coverage of "kyokugenryu karate" in reliable sources that are independent of SNK and its games. Most of the content of the article violates WP:PLOT and WP:GAMETRIVIA. Randomran (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as it successfully meets our notability guidelines by having plenty of google hits indicating verfiability and popularity, which are key elements of notability. Consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fictional topics. Consistent with What Wikipedia is. Editors are actively working to improve it (if they have not yet been notified of this AfD, then please be sure to do so per the AfD instructions: "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} ~~~~ (for contributors or established users). You can determine the main contributors of the articles by entering the page name at Wikipedia Page History Statistics."). Sufficient reader interest. Finally, trivia is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - Google hits cannot be used to establish verifiability or notability, and popularity is not notability nor can it be used as a substitute. Reader interest is not the concern here; the AfD states that notability is, which cannot, again, be judged from popularity. Finally, trivia is not encyclopedic. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    The many sources that appear on the hits can be used to establish verifiability and notability is a subjective term. Popularity is an element of notability. Finally, trivia is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Trivia as defined by the guidelines set down by Wikipedia is not encyclopedic. Notability is defined in the same method: Wikipedia defines quite clearly what notability means, and by existence of that definition, notability is not subjective. Finally, if you wish to verify this article, feel free to. You must use reliable secondary sources to both verify the article as well as establish notability, and previewing the 2,000 hits that Google gives, there are none which are both reliable (verifiability) and secondary (notability) to the source. Again, read WP:N: popularity is distinct from notability, and cannot be used to show that something is notable. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    This article though is hardly "trivia" anyway and so is encyclopedic. The sources on Google effectively demonstrate notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Nowhere did I say the article at hand was trivia to begin with. I do think it rather pointy of you to assume that someone thinks this game is trivia(l) simply from the link provided, which is meant as a shortcut and not as literal meaning.
    As for the sources on Google, again, they can/have not established notability. If you think the game is notable, cite that it is so using reliable secondary sources (you have not done this either, as I requested of you). I have already replied to that point once; going around in circles is hardly productive. --Izno (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    The nomination called the article trivia, thus, I addressed that aspect of the nomination. Please do not assume bad faith or make pointed comments. The sources on Google if nothing else show potential, i.e. Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state and it is entirely reasonable that something that appears in multiple games could appear in published game guides or video game magazines. I agree that going around in circles does not help. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I didn't call the article trivia. Please read the policy, assume good faith, and please break the habit of misrepresenting what other people are saying. Randomran (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    If it isn't trivia, then please do not cite "gametrivia" as a reason for deletion, assume good faith, and break the habit of misrepresenting what other people are saying. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Which part of your statement did I misrepresent? Randomran (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    See below for reply. --Izno (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete lacks real world references and has no real world notability. JuJube (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no non-trivial coverage by reliable verifiable secondary sources to assert any notability. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - A browse for reliable sources for notability came up with nothing potentially useful for real-world information, so it fails guidelines. The article is also somewhat confusing (partially due to its treatment of the subject as though it were real), I had an effort trying to work out what it was talking about. -- Sabre (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nominator, and reasons stated in reply to Le Grand Roi. Also, violates WP:NOT#GUIDE. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It is however consistent with What Wikipedia is and violates none of our policies or guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Using an essay to defend what Wikipedia is cannot possibly stand against what policy says it is not. Policy quite clearly says that this article is not what Wikipedia is. If you would like to argue policy, take it up at the policy pages you see fit to. They are not here. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
        • It does as it is an interpretation of our policy that demonstrates this article is in fact compatible with them. Policy states that Wikipedia IS not just a general encyclopedia, but also a specialized encyclopedia, and this article is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on video games, on fiction, on martial arts, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Policies are not to be interpreted, unless through the use of guidelines which do so for us, in which case, we must follow the guidelines. If you would like to attempt to make any of the essays a guideline for editing, feel free to pursue that quest as you feel. --Izno (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Of course policies are to be interpreted; that's the only way to understand them and follow them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
              • But it's not our role to do so; it is the role of the editors of the guidelines, which are what many editors agree with and should generally if not always be followed. Reading the article, the only information pertinent in an out-of universe sense is that this style of martial arts is based off two which are real world martial arts. The paragraph which explains the connection could very easily go in the parent article(s) to this.
                From above: Again, the nomination did not call it trivia. You are interpreting a link literally, which is meant to be interpreted as a shortcut to guidelines. Whether you do so deliberately or not, I do not know. The nominator could certainly have done a better job with the nomination with this instance, I will agree.
                As for potential, it has potential until somebody gives it a reliable secondary source which establishes notability and in effect saves it in face from WP:NOT and WP:N. Potential itself can not stand as a reason to keep an article, as it is neither policy nor guideline, but the very state of the wiki itself. The potential still exists for this article, even if it is deleted, and if sources can be found for it, odds are, it will not be deleted, or be recreated. But until that time, we follow the guidelines which precurse a (un)valuable article. --Izno (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I suspect there would be some reputable gamers' magazine out there that would cover it. Does need some more out-of-universe writing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources, and this topic can be easily covered in the game article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, is a fighting style within a game, and the article has no sources, fails WP:Verifiability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's verifiable through the games. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Really? Those games all look like blurs to me. One shouldn't have to do original research of one's own to discover if the Wikipedia article is lying to you; it is supposed to be the other way 'round. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • A good encyclopedia should encourage its readers to go further and do additional research. Plus, we read many things daily that are original research every time we watch the news and read a newspaper article. Do we check every time if the reporter is honest? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:03, 10 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.