Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youn Wha Ryu

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 due to lack of non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 08:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Youn Wha Ryu

Youn Wha Ryu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No sign of notability or reliable sources here or on google. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep The above claim is false. All of my sources are properly cited. Any sources not cited are the result of the authors before me. As per my research, I can neither confirm nor deny their claims beyond any reasonable doubt. Clear stone 00:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone
I note that all but one source is primary & that seems derived. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I see no signs of notability. MarkBul 00:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is entirely notable, as it is entirely relevant to anyone practicing or considering practicing Youn Wha Ryu. Clear stone 00:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone

Clear stone. Can you explain how this picture is relevant to the article you are defending now? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per nominator--WebHamster 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To understand the relevance of the image, you must understand the current controversy regarding Youn Wha Ryu. The purpose of this page is to state the 'facts' of both sides of the issue. The image is proof that the claim is not just made up. Clear stone 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Clear stone

comment not to burst your bubble or anything, but on the picture there are no search results for this subject. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
comment That was the entire point of the image. If you had read the article, that would be clear. Clear stone 01:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone
Ok. Now it is deleted. Please read File storage areas. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Clear stone, every bit of information in the world is useful to someone. See WP:USEFUL. If wanted to learn how to do a back flip a guide to doing back flips would be useful, but is it encylopedic? the answer to that is no. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To DBZ: The article is not a guide on how to do anything. It is a compiled item of research regarding the history, training techniques, people involved, important dates and events, and current events of Youn Wha Ryu. That is in my opinion entirely encyclopedic. There are similar articles for thousands of other martial arts of the exact template. If this isn't encyclopedic then none of the others are either and should be on the chopping block. Clear stone 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone

  • Delete Fails WP:N, no reliable sources. Also, I'm puzzled by the author's claim both here and on the article talk page that "uncited information is due to other editors trying to get it deleted." On the article history, it appears that he's the only editor to have added any text there. Am I missing something? Thomjakobsen 01:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
comment The only sources aside from the Youn Wha homepage and it's sections sources are the author of the guide that I mention and a third party source regarding Tae Kwon Do. The reason that I am the only author is because the page was deleted earlier today by one side of the issue. I started it up with a previous version I had saved. Clear stone 01:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone

Would someone show how the thing is non-notable? Judging from a survey of the 1000-odd Google hits, there appears to be an organization in Missouri or something, and I am unsure of whether this is truly non-notable or not. An encyclopedia is supposed to contain a wide range of information; that is what an encyclopedia is there for - and this includes topics that some or even many may not find notable or relevant to their lives. The burden of proof ought to be on the lack of notability on something, not on showing how something is notable. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

comment Props to Rickyrab. Clear stone 01:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone
proof that sources aren't reliable? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
the organization is actually headed out of Texas, if that would help your Google fetishes at all Clear stone 02:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone
  • Comment Rickyrab, it's actually the other way around. Notability has to be established for all articles. WP:N explains the guidelines, including: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So far, we only seem to have the official page of this thing, which isn't independent and reliable as to the topic's notability. Thomjakobsen 02:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:This is exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia today: the Wikipedia community puts too many restrictions on the concept of notability. The burden OUGHT to be on proving that the topic is non-notable. What's the problem with a phenomenon becoming notable via Wikipedia, anyhow? What's with this uptightness about notability? — Rickyrab | Talk 02:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Apparently, MySpace is good for that sort of thing. Thomjakobsen 02:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a recipe for cruft. Notability via Wikipedia is tantamount to Astroturfing; "Hey, it's in WP, so it *must* be notable". Now, if you'll excuse me, I have an autobiography to write :) - Alison ☺ 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Am I missing something? How would you prove that a subject is non-notable, since any reasonable documentation (e.g., a newspaper article) would tend to speak to notability? This is an extremely silly standard. Wikipedia isn't here to publicize non-notable subjects, but to document things that are already notable. bikeable (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment :I agree with that statement. In America, citizens are innocent until proven guilty. Not that there is a direct comparisson, but subjects and sources should be considerred notable until proven otherwise. Clear stone 02:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone
  • Delete: The burden is on the author to clarify that the article discusses a subject that has notability. In this case, the author has failed to do so and has succeeded in recreating the article despite my initial deletion(s). From what I can tell, this article does not support that its subject is notable for encyclopedic inclusion, and the arguments of the author (Clear stone) that the fault is on the initial writers is baseless, as he is the only individual writing it and solely linking to younwharyu.com as his sources. This article should have remained deleted as I initially intended, and it is obvious that it will be deleted, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment : I am the only author of this current version. The previous version, before I had edited it at all, contained nothing but propoganda and was never considered for deletion. I more than doubled its' information, even out the sides, and added two sources outside of Youn Wha(check the sources). If imporiving an article means it is deserving of deletion, then by all means delete. But I recommend that if it is to be deleted that it should be forever be a banned topic of Wikipedia to prevent the spread of Youn Wha propoganda. Clear stone 03:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone
  • Delete - no significant attempts at assertion of notability - Alison ☺ 02:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT User talk:Rickyrab and Clear stone. Pleae read WP:N. That is the guideline for notability, establihed through consensus. Instead of complaining about what is wrong with Wikipedia, why don't you read WP:N and then go to those 372 UNIQUE google hits and find sources that show the subject is notable. That would be more productive and is the only way to save the article Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. satisfied Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.satisfied

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. satisfied as they are all available and considered the foremost authority on the subject "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. satisfied as three are secondary "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. satisfied as 1/3 are sources independent of Youn Wha Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merger with another article. satisfied simple by the sheer number of pages devoted to Youn Wha Ryu Clear stone 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone

  • Delete Non-notable, and apparently, despite long arguments to the contrary, unverifiable. All the references I see are either point back to the subject of the article, or to faqs.com (which is a little too Web 2.0-ish to be reliable) Bfigura (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I do see a moderate number of hits (about 200 excluding younwha.com and wikipedia) and some of those appear to be listings of trainings, etc -- but many are also conversations in martial arts message boards asking about YWR or replying that it appears to be made up. Some external documentation (e.g., in books or magazines about martial arts or in non-trival news media references) might push this the other way, but for now it really looks like an extremely non-notable technique. bikeable (talk)
  • DeleteI've made a couple of attempts to clean up the page. Added a controversy section. But the whole page falls into the not-notable category. Unless someone can find a significant series of news entries or websites other then the home site that detail the history, that I have not been able to find. I did a search on Amazon and I cant find any books about this style. I will do some more searches on newspaper sites to see if I can find anything. But nothing is coming up. --Clausewitz01 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. this has already been deleted (I assume a speedy) as NN once. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The two links offered above as "independent" (at faqs.org and dojang.com) don't seem to contain any mentions of Youn Wha Ryu. Thomjakobsen 12:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment They don't mention Youn Wha Ryu, but are relevant to the article. Facts gives the criterion for McDojo's and the other gives information on the patterns in Youn Wha. Clear stone 03:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone
  • Comment But they don't help establish notability. We need reliable third-party sources that give significant coverage of YWR. At the moment all we have is the official website. When we've asked for these third-party sources above, you've pointed to those independent links but they're not relevant to notability because they don't mention YWR. They may be useful for other parts of the article, but they're no good at showing notability of YWR itself. Thomjakobsen 12:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. That an organization makes false claims about itself it not a sufficient cause to delete an article dealing with it. Scientology is a prime example. That a martial artist makes false claims about himself or herself is not a sufficient cause to delete an article. Ashida Kim is a prime example. Most martial arts have little mainstream publicity and many koryu JMA articles could be deleted if a restrictive notability guideline is applied to all martial arts. (RookZERO 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
    • WP:V is a controlling policy in the sense that if there really is no reliable published material on something then we shouldn't have an article about it. If there is no mainstream publicity, we should delete the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If they had been shown to be a fraud by a newspaper expose or similar, like Kim, then they would be notable & the criticism would be sourceable, right not its not possible to prove either way so needs ot be deleted it. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • After reading the counter arguments over the last few days. I would change my vote to Keep. if the first line of the article were changed to:
    • Youn Wha Ryu is a martial arts system which perfectly exemplifies the McDojo style of club. It combines techniques from several martial art styles including Taekwondo, Hapkido and Judo. [citation needed] --Clausewitz01 21:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Except it can't be changed to that, because calling it a "McDojo" is libellous. Thomjakobsen 21:35, 10 September 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.