Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapid Assault Tactics

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 Jayron32 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Assault Tactics

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

Non-notable self-defense system Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my previous comments on the Talk page. JJL (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i would change my mind if i saw an article talk about it Cynof Gavuf 10:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems closely tied to the one on Paul Vunak--it seems like they're either both notable or both NN. The letters of appreciation on the subject's home page are nice, but I'd like to see some 3rd party coverage. Even the letters aren't completely convincing. For example, the letter from the Seals says they'll be testing the system--there's no documentation that they're using it. JJL, on the talk page you said it's covered in Black Belt magazine. I went to the magazine's web site and searched unsuccessfully for an article on either this system or Paul Vunak, but I admit that's not necessarily conclusive. Vunak's DVDs and books are obviously not independent sources. An independent article on this system, combined with the letters I read, could convince me to support keeping this article.Papaursa (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete due to non-notability. There are no URLs with ".gov" in them that reference Paul Vunak. And per JJL's previous comments on the talk page: Anybody can make a claim about teaching something to Navy Seals, and it may technically be true. I can personally make claims that I've trained to become a Green Beret, that I've trained with Special Forces, and that I've actually trained Special Forces recruits/members myself. My claims are entirely true, but extremely misleading. The only source for the Wiki article in question is to Paul Vunak's page itself. Delete with prejudice. FFLaguna (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search seems to suggest that the Black Belt Magazine article about Vunak was April 2006 - not sure if anyone has accessible archives going far enough back - anyone know a library that could provide access? If that's the only independent source available then it's probably not notable enough. -- Medains (not logged in due to laziness) 82.219.208.105 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, I believe the cover was April 2008. I haven't read the article, which is apparently titled "The Only Weapon Technique You'll Ever Need". The website (http://scientificfighting.com/) describes the system as a "top secret hand-to-hand fighting system" that allows anyone to "become a lethal weapon in just hours." The system certainly does not seem to be widespread. I'll consider changing my vote, but only with some proof of independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 01:45, 3 November 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.