Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosho Shorei Ryu Kempo

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 consensus (default keep); just not enough participation although the AfD was started 25 days ago. Relisting is clearly not the right thing to do. Perhaps editors should use the PROD process first in cases where the subject is not likely to garner wide attention. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosho Shorei Ryu Kempo

non notable style. The article's only "claim" to notability is brining martial arts to Hawaii, where they undoubtably were already. The article is basically a coatrack for Mitose RogueNinja_talk 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinja_talk 10:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the system of James Mitose and Bruce Juchnik that heavily influenced American Kenpo is notable. JJL (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Just becase American Kempo is notable does not mean that this is. RogueNinja_talk 17:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no claim of inheritance of WP:N here. I found 6,750 ghits for "Kosho Shorei". An Amazon search on "Kosho Shorei" shows that the phrase appears in many books, several of which cite Mitose's influential "What is Self Defense? (Kenpo Jiu-Jitsu)" [1] from Kosho-Shorei Publishing (which published other books as well). See also "James Mitose’s Kempo Karate" in Classical Fighting Arts #3 (19-24, 59). This is a notable system. JJL (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the current state I'm inclining towards weak delete. I'm not saying that the topic is definitely not notable. Probably after some digging notability could be established, after all the topic is googlable. Still, I'm not sure if this is going to happen (if anybody will actually refine the article) and in the current state it is very poor, un-sourced, and not wikized. Also, even if the topic is potentially notable, it definitely is not a must-have. Pundit|utter 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 25 February 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.