Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Ralston

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. Delete comments in this AfD correctly point out to the lack of RS to support claims within the article. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ralston

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

Cheng Hsin, the martial arts system developed by this man was deleted after this discussion. This bio is also lacking in independent evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The man won a martial arts world championship and created his own sport; that has to be notable. The article needs improving though, so I've put it up for {{Rescue}}. -- BenTels (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I originally put this article up for rescue; however, after looking more carefully for resources online I no longer believe rescue to be possible. All the occurrences are derived from Wikipedia or mention Ralston in passing in relation to Cheng Hsin. I'll leave the template up so others can try, but I'm giving up on this one... -- BenTels (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. BenTels (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are now many Cheng Hsin centres all over the world. They all refer to Peter Ralston as the founder of Cheng Hsin. Obviously there are many practicioners and Peter Ralston has a significant meaning to them. This article should be kept, as many who have never heard of this person (who is notable as stated above) or Cheng Hsin, may want to reference this. Where else than in Wikipedia? --JHvW (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has never heard of this person or his art, why would they want to reference them? If he and his art are unknown except to his followers, then I don't see how he's notable. Astudent0 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This person appears to pass the notability threshold (probably per WP:AUTHOR), however this article needs major work. Large portions of this article need to be deleted. For instance, this quote apparently claims that this person possesses telekinetic powers: "Mostly, his experiments to find effortless power were unsuccessful but now and then he would effortlessly move someone. Over time, he learned to produce those effortless results intentionally, mostly through the generation of particular mind-states and feeling-states." I'll try to do some cleanup. SnottyWong ^squeal 15:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to delete - I went through and cleaned up the article, and in that process realized how spam-laden it really is. It reads like it was written by Ralston himself, or someone who is close to him, and it relies almost exclusively on primary sources. Much of it is unsourced (and makes some extraordinary claims), and secondary sources do not appear to be forthcoming. Unless secondary sources can be provided which establish the notability (per WP:GNG) of this person, his books, and/or his fighting style, then this should be deleted. SnottyWong ^verbalize 16:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmmm. I don't agree that it should go entirely (as JHvW remarks, we can pretty well call it established that the man developed Cheng Hsin). However, I'm starting to think the article may have to go all the way back to stub status. I've been looking and I can't (so far) even find which championship he won in 1978.... -- BenTels (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Cheng Hsin was recently deleted at AfD, so basing the notability of this individual on Cheng Hsin is probably not valid. SnottyWong ^chat 14:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent sources supporting the claims can be found. I didn't find any independent sources that support his notability. There are no independent sources in the article, the art he created isn't notable, and I can't find documentation for his world championship. There's a bio of him at usadojo.com, but it turns out that came from the Cheng Hsin home page (hardly independent). The only thing that does seem to be verifiable are his books, but there's no indication that any of them are notable so he doesn't seem to qualify as an author. If someone can find reliable sources supporting notability, I'll reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search his name and "martial arts" shows some results.[1] A nice article about him and his notable accomplishments is found here: [2] Dream Focus 02:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing reliable sourcing. The "nice article about him" appears to be from an interview with a local paper, with no independent fact checking. It was written years after his claimed world tournament win and doesn't even name the event--it refers to the event as being like the one Bruce Lee attended in "Enter the Dragon." I'm sorry, but that sounds more like the unsupported Frank Dux claims of winning secret no holds barred competitions. There's no doubt that being a world champion would make him notable, I'd just like to see a reliable source. I can't tell who wrote the book review referenced by Dream Focus. Astudent0 (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has COI issues and no reliable sources. There are some extraordinary claims, but no supporting evidence. 204.126.132.34 (talk) 18:53, 30 September 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.