Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shohei-ryu

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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shohei-ryu

non notable style, very few ghits RogueNinja_talk 02:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Uechi-ryū as a variant of. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinja_talk 02:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep world wide vibrant community. Does not meet 'Reasons for deletion'. Eric235u (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator: Large and notable offshoot of Uechi-ryu; this is the only major offshoot of one of the four major styles of Okinawan Karate (Isshin, Goju, Shorin, and Uechi). Some schools teaching Shohei-ryu still advertise as Uechi-ryu or as Uechi-Shohei ryu for the greater name recognition. Although the techniques and kata are similar the orgs. are different and there are stylistic differences. Many schools in many countries: [1]. Over 1400 ghits for "Shohei ryu". Frequently featured in Dragon Times (e.g., [2]; cf. [3] indicating his style at the time as Shohei-ryu, though he now heads his own Pangainoon org.). JJL (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just did a search on that topic on Yahoo Japan, ending up with over 60,000 results, with people documenting their trips going to Japan to learn this form. TheAsianGURU (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have cleaned up the article a bit, did some formatting referencing etc and added an image. I have also added {{fact}} templates to where i think more references are needed as a guide. Fosnez (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uechi-ryū - trivial coverage in reliable sources. Also, none of the keep reasons given above are valid. Having a large number of google results isn't especially relevant. Having a worldwide vibrant community doesn't count for much either. Also, lacking in notability obviously complies with requirements for deletion. Addhoc (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "size of membership" may be considered for notability. nevertheless notability is not policy. Eric235u (talk) 02:49, 10 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.