Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Studios of Self Defense
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. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] United Studios of Self Defense
This McDojo article patently fails WP:Notability with zero reliable, independent sources and none to be found in a Google News search. Without sources, this is very clearly spam. VanTucky (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with the other editors here. This article is being abused and shaped for advertisement purposes, with little fact and large helpings of bias. I propose that it be deleted. NJM
- Comment There seem to be an awful lot of these around, though - at least in my neck of the woods (Southern California). Need to look into the company more closely. If they're commercially successful they may be notable for that, even if the quality of their instruction is equivalent to McDonalds' in the food business. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, from the simple anecdotal accounts I've read and heard, they're not too bad. The McDojo thing is mostly referencing the vast amount of schools. But simple size of the organization isn't notability, and when so vast a school-system as this doesn't have equally significant coverage...that says to me that they aren't notable enough for encyclopedic treatment. For an organization encompassing 170 separate facilities nation-wide, shouldn't they be getting more coverage if they are notable? VanTucky (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless reliable sources are cited to provide verifiability and establish notability. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment if deleted a less neutral version is libable to be created, making the best of whats there might be a better option. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- What might happen in the future on this subject is not an excuse for letting an unsourced, non-notable article stand. If the situation arises, we will deal with it. VanTucky (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- My point was it would be better to have a cleaned version of this then nothing p.s. started to clean--Nate1481( t/c) 16:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- But it doesn't fundamentally matter whether it is neutral and clean or not, it patently fails WP:Notability and WP:V. I might have a really great article on myself, but it would still fail WP:BIO. VanTucky (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- My point was it would be better to have a cleaned version of this then nothing p.s. started to clean--Nate1481( t/c) 16:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- What might happen in the future on this subject is not an excuse for letting an unsourced, non-notable article stand. If the situation arises, we will deal with it. VanTucky (talk) 16:11, 17 July 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.
