Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daki Kubi Jime

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. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daki Kubi Jime

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rd to Danzan Ryu. Insufficiently notable, unsourced. JJL (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seperate articles for individual moves are uncalled for. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Create page called List of Judo throws, add all this info to that and redirect this term. Lugnuts (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you look at the article in question you'll see it isn't a Judo technique. It's from Danzan-ryu Jujutsu. Hence this page might be an appropriate redirect target candidate: List of Danzan-ryū techniques. There are also two judo technique pages already: List of Kodokan Judo techniques and Judo technique . JJL (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty meagre results at Google book search, so appears to fail notability. Some results are just juxtaposition of some of the words. Others are just listings of techniques, and Wikipedia is not a mirror of every directory. Edison (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Danzan-ryū techniques as a plausible search term not warranting its own article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:23, 9 June 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.