Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaidojutsu

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 Redirect to Jackson's Submission Fighting, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines but is an appropriate redirect. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaidojutsu

Non notable art tagged for 2 years for sources, claims lots of notable fighters but no sources. Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure that outstanding issues are any more of a reason for deletion two years down the road than the day they were first pointed out. It certainly doesn't appear to be a hoax. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was notable I would have expected to see a source by now. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn yet another spam article RogueNinja_talk 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jackson's Submission Fighting, which is notable. JJL (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jackson's Submission Fighting. This article says nothing about the techniques of Gaidojutsu. jmcw (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jackson's Submission Fighting - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.