Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryūkyū Kobudo Hozon Shinkokai

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 Ryukyu Kobudo. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryūkyū Kobudo Hozon Shinkokai

Contested PROD, unorphaned and no external links/sources find. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, No importance, No article Irunongames • play 01:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ryukyu Kobudo. I have come to agree with JJL: this information belongs better in the other article. I will work on this article in the next month. jmcw (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I have added material and references to the article. All the Okinawan kobudo articles need work. jmcw (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The things you added don't appear to show the subject's notability. Dekimasuよ! 01:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The organization was grounded in 1911. Can anyone name a karate organization with a longer history? Could I ask the community to consider potential rather than current state?jmcw (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I certainly consider Mark Bishop a reliable source on the matter, but surely we need more? There are a lot of orgs. out there. A redirect is indeed a way of giving it time...the history remains, and it can be un-redirected if further evidence of WP:N is found.

Added a second reliable source. jmcw (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC) JJL (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shinken Taira or Ryukyu Kobudo where it is mentioned; no evidence of notability for this org. JJL (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The new references seem to attest to notability (though more are needed). Cnilep (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment references? I see a single WP:RS reference, plus its own web page. JJL (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JJL, what do you think a stub article needs to survive? A reliable source and a 100 year old international organisation is not enough? jmcw (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment being 100 years old isn't a sign of notability (in this regard I concur with WP:BIG/WP:OLDAGE). The Bishop reference (pg. 147 of my copy) merely mentions that such an org. was founded by Shinken Taira and then drops it--a passing reference. As far as I saw, it wasn't mentioned anywhere else (and isn't indexed). While it supports a, b is a synthesis (esp. when you look at the chart beneath this mention) and c is at best vague (did he succeed in the art, per the Ryukyu Kobudo lineage chart, or the org.?). I don't have access to ref. 2, but this isn't convincing evidence of notability. Redirecting it means the info. is here when evidence of WP:N is found. JJL (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the second edition from 1999? Would you prefer to spread the section Ryukyu Kobudo with three teachers over three articles about the teachers? Or maybe delete this article and start one about Ryukyu Kobudo? jmcw (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no, I just have the first ed. from 1989. Is there more detail on this in the second ed.? The Ryukyu Kobudo article as it stands seems to cover much of the same ideas but in less detail--why not merge and rd there? The two articles seem redundant to me as things stand. JJL (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2009 (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.