Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washinkai

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. sources was a concern that wasn't met in the AFD Secret ^account 21:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Washinkai

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

Non notable karate style. RogueNinja_talk 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• keep I'm not into karate, but a googling seemed to bring up many ghits, some of which would qualify as wp:rs quality. Needs to be tagged for sources, but they seem to be available...after the first 20 or so ghits. Pharmboy (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete I would say it's borderline notable since lineage is semi-established (parent style is named, but who taught the founder?) and since it has branches in several countries (albeit without reference). My issue with this the article is that it was created and the only content additions were made by self-described Washinkai British Karate Governing Body 3rd Dan, who hasn't done anything else on Wikipedia [1]. Around the time of its creation, Washinkai was also added into Karate on a number of occasions [2] and [3] (and eventually reverted as spam) --Cubbi (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Those are great reasons for tagging it COI, or fixing it, but not deleting it. If it passes notability (the reason for the nomination to begin with) then it is a matter of tagging and despamming it. You seem to say it is "borderline notable" but want to delete for reasons that indicate it needs improvement only. Pharmboy (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  Reply My point is that if all COI edits were reverted, the article would be gone. Anyway, you're right, I amend myself from Delete to Weak delete, let others decide. --Cubbi (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

COI doesn't have to be removed, just tagged. Then it can be rewritten using wp:rs that can be wp:v To be honest, there isn't that much that would have to be removed, just the stuff that would qualify as original research. I just edited out the COI stuff (mainly). I think the rest can be sourced out. Pharmboy (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:COI is not an independent reason for deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:COI is no reason for deletion, but WP:N is. All the GHits are just other random websites. Sole GNews hit is a press release, and the GBooks hits are about an unrelated organisation Find sources: Washinkai — news, books, scholar. Regular Google stops after ~150 GHits out of the 3,000 because the rest are duplicates. Practically the only independent source is this newspaper article [4]. cab (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - most of the decent sources seem to be in Japanese. Its a specialist area, so I'd like input from someone on the appropriate sub-project before a final decision is made, but on GHits evidence it passes WP:N. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  Reply What japanese sources? The subject of the article is a british organization. The japanese hospital of the same name (http://www.washinkai.jp) is unrelated. --Cubbi (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  WP:GHITS is explicitly not a notability criterion. And I second Cubbi's comments; there are no Japanese sources. Based on the quote from the article "Wa - for harmony ... Shin - for heart ... Kai - for group", it should be "和心会" in Japanese; a search for washinkai and karate in Japanese gives 14 GHits [5], while a search for washinkai and wadou-ryuu in Japanese gives zero GHits [6]. cab (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of notability for this new style. JJL (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no refs, no evidence of notability or content validity. And says almost nothing - and nothing interesting. NBeale (talk) 22:01, 26 January 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.