Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kinney (Kinney Karate)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kinney (Kinney Karate)

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

WP:ADVERT This article reads like an advertisement that would take a significant rewrite, WP:GNG I couldn't find any significant mentions despite the long list of apparent references. Also appears to be written by a WP:COI. heather walls (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is really hard to make the call here with respect to notability since it is so badly written. Both the Kinney articles are essentially copies of themselves - one has to be deleted. Both need to be wikified and trimmed of all the puffery. The COI is obvious. At the very least it should be returned to user space until the obvious problems are sorted out.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both of the Michael Kinney articles (one on him, one on his school) have no citations in the article and are full of vague, unsubstantiated claims (e.g., trained "uncountable number of black belt instructors" and "hundreds of champions"). There are lots of peacock terms and nothing that is reliably sourced that shows he meets WP:MANOTE. His rank is insufficient to show notability and working "alongside many of the greatest martial artists" is WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the original author agrees to delete the school article and requests time to work on this one. My feeling is that we should allow this - the question of notability was hard to determine but with a little work it could be clearer.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article should be renamed Michael Kinney (martial artist), example: Bill Wallace (martial artist) heather walls (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes it should - but renaming at this point would mess up all the discussions. Let's leave that till later. I notice that Michael Kinney (Martial Artist) redirects to this article.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I moved the article to Michael Kinney (martial artist) as suggested. The inclusion of references make things much easier to determine. I say Weak because I think it needs some more work to establish its impact.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with renaming the article and that the article has been improved, but I'm still having problems seeing notability. The claims seem to fall under WP:NOTINHERITED--that he trained under a notable martial artist and has trained hundreds of champions. Another problem is verifying sources--finding 40 and 50 year old articles from local papers is a problem. I searched the Black Belt magazine website and his name wasn't found. The TKA website doesn't list him as a master or blackbelt, which I found strange if he was the chief instructor for 12 years, nor is his school listed. I also couldn't find him or his school at the World Tang Soo Do Association website nor was he listed as a member at www.whfsc.com (an additional source he listed). His school's website did have a blurry photo of an 8th dan and a PhD, both granted by the Eastern USA International Martial Arts Association (whose website says its Hall of Fame has over 15,000 members), but rank alone is not a notability criteria. I simply don't see verifiable evidence to show he meets the martial arts notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like the real notability claim of this individual is that he's been a martial arts instructor for a long time and has taught a lot of students. Those are not sufficient to meet WP:MANOTE. Like Papaursa I couldn't find online versions of those old articles and the online coverage I found of him was not significant independent coverage. It's the lack of any real case for notability, however, that has the biggest influence on my vote. Mdtemp (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability from this article does come from a long career and the dusty sources reflect that. Citing the websites listed gives a researcher the tools to discover the facts below the URL. The main purpose of a citation is to open a portal for research. All old references require more detective work that might require a scratch below the surface to establish notability. However,it should be noted that the subject of the article is all over the internet search engines. The TKA website was noted, however that website does not go into the history of it's founding instructors- it's an advertisement for classes for your kids. If the question of notability was brought up for discussion to someone in that organization, you would find serious notability- since the linage of all of the major instructors bear his mark. The Black Belt Magazine references are older articles, but exist, and were published before examination of every important Martial Artist contributor might have to bear future scrutiny in prehistoric databases. Searching on the surface for association memberships who are no longer active, or awards based on past membership would reveal further details if researched further. Supporting inclusion makes sure that many notable people, who may fly in under radar, are recognized and remembered. Without digging, how do you cite Older musicians who may not be commonly known, or early gymnasts who, generations ago, influenced Olympic Gymnasts today? How about Boxing coaches who set standards, and influenced the art based on the sheer number of years they trained fighters? Or, Martial Artists who worked in the trenches but changed the landscape in modern style Ju-Jitsu or fighting styles. This subject will keep coming up by many future contributors even if it is deleted. This subject has deep roots that would bear any future investigation of sources and claims for notability. Many articles are published in this record about younger subjects who "flash in the pan," who have accomplished far less, and whose only contribution to society was a minute commercial citation. Sorry this sounds like a speech- just making multiple points to consider.

User:Sokemike (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the TKA website (http://www.tka.cc/) does go into both its history and its grandmasters (Hwang Kee, James Cummings, and others). Old time boxing trainers like Cus D'Amato, Angelo Dundee, Gil Clancy and others do have articles because their deeds are well documented. I looked at the TKA and World Tang Soo Do Association websites, as well as blackbeltmag.com and whfsc.com, because you listed those in your list of sources and article. If you're saying that you've had a significant impact on the martial arts, then it shouldn't be hard to find sources. All of this is why WP discourages autobiographies (see WP:AUTO). I don't mean to imply that you haven't been a successful karate instructor or that your teachings don't have merit, merely that what you've said doesn't seem to distinguish you from other long time instructors. Papaursa (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for martial artists. In fact, he seems to meet the only deletion criteria mentioned--"Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art". The discussion about sources also does not support notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I'm relisting this debate to allow for more discussion about the specific sources that have been added to the article. I recommend that editors focus their energies on whether these sources indicate that the subject passes WP:BIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can accept that there was (perhaps) more coverage of the subject and that on the basis that notability is not temporary, keeping the article should be considered. However (and this is often the issue with obviously COI-written articles with historical references), none of the "sources" are linked and most refer to articles from the 70's, 80's and 90's. With no way of verifying them independently, we have to rely on the subject's own memory to accurately recount significant coverage of himself. 20 pages into a google search and I cannot find one single source that could possibly be considered either "significant coverage" or "independent, reliable". While I'm happy to assume good faith, the blatant nature of the conflict of interest involved makes me inclined to expect more to verify notability than the subject's own opinion that he is. Show me a couple of modern (or even archive) sources and I'll fight the nay-sayers to the death using my mad karate skills. Until then, there is not much we can do to adequately tick the WP:GNG boxes. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2012 (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.