Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaolin Temple UK

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 keep. Majorly (hot!) 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaolin Temple UK

Shaolin Temple UK (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Advertisement for a single martial arts school (WP:SPAM). Despite the weasle words ("Turn of the millenium") it is young and non-notable. Peter Rehse 11:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Close AfD, Article tagged CSD A7 per nom Thewinchester (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep to see if the article can be improved--I rather doubt it, but it claims notability as a regional center, and I do not see why uouth is an obstacle. . And , frankly, I do not altogether trust speedy deletes requested during an afD discussion. The point of AfD is to let other people see the article for a consensus decision.DGG 04:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because the school is notable since it is one of only 3 emissary schools in the world of the Shaolin Temple in China, which is the major historical place of Chinese Martial Arts. As an emissary school, it is an important element of the current day Shaolin Lineage. The founder of the UK Temple is the most noted fighting monk to come out of the Shaolin Temple in many decades, with a record as Chinese National Champion (in hand to hand combat) for 15 years. Thus the school is of special interest within Chinese Martial Arts.

I am very keen to discuss how the article can be improved, however I disagree that it should be deleted.Lionel Ward 08:34, 11 April 2007 (GMT)

  • Keep. There are secondary sources referenced in the article; copies of the actual articles can be found on the Temple's website. I'm a bit concerned there is a conflict of interest aspect to the article, but it does seem to meet the notability threshhold.--Kubigula (talk) 01:38, 16 April 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.