Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight blast

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 following improvements. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straight blast

Straight blast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Valid sporting term per this search. Needs to be fleshed out a bit, but it's not just a dicdef. --Wafulz 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WINAD. dcandeto 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded and referenced Actually, contrary to Wafulz's opinion above, the article as currently written is just a dictionary definition of the term. It makes no attempt to discuss the term beyond what would appear in the dictionary, such as the history of the term, what the technique actually is, how and why it works, or its appearances in published media. The article is also unreferenced. So unless it can be expanded to be more encyclopedic with some proper sourcing, delete. Dugwiki 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Modified my recommendation to Keep assuming references check out. The article now appears to be much more encyclopedic and is no long unreferenced. Thanks to Black Falcon for the clean up effort. :) Dugwiki 17:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete but...: Seems to be more suited at Wiktionary at the present moment. If it has more references and is expanded upon, I don't see a reason for deletion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment / Question. If it is indeed more appropriate for Wiktionary, shouldn't it be transwikied before deletion? -- Black Falcon 04:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • At this point, it may be ideal to transwiki. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Upon actually looking at the article's content, I believe it should be kept. WP:WINAD applies to articles that have no potential for expansion beyond a dictionary entry. This topic is notable per 3 of the 7 external links and can be expanded with more detail about techniques, appropriate defenses, commonality, and so on. -- Black Falcon 06:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see: [1], [2], and [3]. -- Black Falcon 06:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I just added a few sources (and additional sentences) to the article, but must stop for now. I believe the article (as it currently stands) merits inclusion in WP: it is not inherently a dicdef and it passes the notability guideline as per the multiple sources (references and external links). The article does require cleanup and, if it is kept, I will work on it some more (removing unsourced portions, adding more information, etc.). -- Black Falcon 06:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 10:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete does not in fact read like a dictionary entry, but should every martial arts move have a Wikipedia article? Should be merged with Martial_arts or Bruce_Lee or Strike_(attack) or other. --Parsleyjones 10:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As it seems you're suggesting a merge, I should note that articles that are merged should not be deleted, but rather redirected. I don't actually know how many martial arts moves there are, but this one at least meets WP:N by having multiple sources published about it. If a merge is performed, it should be to Strike (attack)#Punches, but it does not fit there that well. -- Black Falcon 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Good point, I didn't think of it that way. Still, it seems akin to listing every kind of drum roll in a separate article, since there are multiple published sources about all of them as well. I suppose if it was my field I wouldn't feel that way, so maybe it should be kept. --Parsleyjones 21:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article can go well beyond dicdef. And no, not all martial arts moves should have articles, but this one is pretty significant. SubSeven 22:03, 5 March 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.