Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goshin Jujitsu
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 No concensus; the sport appears genuine, but the article could use some work. AfD, however, is not the place to discuss cleanup. — Coren (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Goshin Jujitsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
No sources, no claim of notability, reads like an advert Nate1481( t/c) 15:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481( t/c) 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability. Bradford44 17:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Simply here to promote his 'new' fighting style. Nice format and a lot of work, he should edit some articles..---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- seems legit to me. too many arrogant people on here who want to discredit others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.218.80 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two articles contributed to by 66.191.218.80 have been put up for AfD by me and they have strongly opposed the nomination. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems legit to me, too, but until reliable secondary sources support its "legitness", rather than the generic impression of an editor, my vote remains delete. Bradford44 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the art itself is notable and merits a page, but delete all the content as it's just an ad for one school. Needs to be wholly reworked. JJL (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I know nothing about the sport, but it appears to be real. It needs to be cut down, more cites found, and the cruft removed. Bearian 17:41, 30 November 2007 (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.
