Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okinawan Hatha Goju Ryu Karate Do

: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. Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Okinawan Hatha Goju Ryu Karate Do]]=

:{{la|Okinawan Hatha Goju Ryu Karate Do}} ([{{fullurl:Okinawan Hatha Goju Ryu Karate Do|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okinawan Hatha Goju Ryu Karate Do}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Small, local, non-notable variation of Okinawan Goju-ryu. No third-party sources, 17 ghits for the exact phrase. JJL (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi ! my name is david wilson. I am a fan of martial arts and have looked at this article with my friends. I do not see any thing wrong with this article and any violation of any sort. It clearly shows that Hatha Goju is a substyle of Okinawan goju ryu and deserves a place in this encyclopedia. I feel it would be a deservice for this article to be removed/ deleted.

Sincerely,

David P. Wilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.141.128 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The problem with this article, M. Wilson, is that it does not belong in an encyclopaedia, such as Wikipedia, whose policy is that all content be verifiable and free from primary research and previously unpublished material. Since no-one, apart from this purported organization's own web page, documents it anywhere, readers have no way to determine that anything in this article is true. (See Wikipedia:autobiography for the problems with trusting autobiographies, including autobiographies hosted at free WWW hosting services.) This article cites no independent reliable sources that document its subject, and a search for such sources (that at least both the nominator and I have done, and which other editors coming to this discussion should also do, independently) comes up empty handed. This is an encyclopaedia that readers have to be able to trust to be accurate, and they do that by checking against sources. No sources at all. Therefore no article. It's that simple. And this AFD discussion is not a vote. There is no ballot for you to stuff. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G as he said everything that needs to be said. Tavix (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2009 (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.