Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma Xianda

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. Courcelles 19:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Xianda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP of little or no notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing in the article showing notability and no sources. Everything seems to be about family (learned from his father, taught his sons, etc.)--a clear case of notability is not inherited. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is one of the highest ranking martial artists in China (only 4 living masters are at his level). I just added both sources and material to the article that I believe support his notability. He is mentioned frequently in Chinese martial arts circles, although many references I found wouldn't pass the reliability standard.Papaursa (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article would be better if it made direct claims to notability cited by Papaursa.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article needs much better sourcing, but Papaursa's additions appear to show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved to demonstrate notability. I am prepared to accept Papaursa's view that the subject is notable, but the article does not demonstrate it sufficiently, in my view. Janggeom (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Astudent: with Papaursa's reference to establish notability, the article has potential for development. jmcw (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2010 (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.