Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Shorinji Kempo Organization

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 redirect to Shorinji Kempo. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Shorinji Kempo Organization

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

A minor organisation without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. – Janggeom (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per User_talk:Dwanyewest#Massive_number_of_PRODs_and_AFDs jmcw (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, but I don't think the above reason for a "speedy keep" has any validity since it doesn't address the article at hand. I don't believe that all of the articles he nominated deserve to automatically be kept. Papaursa (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shorinji Kempo, or just redirect as there's not much there. This could have been handled without an AfD by simply redirecting this low-content page to the art's page. JJL (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge something if its clearly not notable? Dwanyewest (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not clearly not notable, and even if it were it might be a reasonable break-out of the main article; a main article like Shorinji Kempo can include material (merged from here, say) that wouldn't be notable on its own; and, redirects are cheap and it's a plausible search term. JJL (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails general notability WP:GNG

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I do not usually give an opinion on this sort of subject, but it would be reassuring to know that the nominator has checked the apparent sources in G News listed above and can confirm that they are not significant. It would be even more reassuring to know that he had done so before he placed the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG you are familiar with the idea that of circular arguements. "Editors should be careful not to use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing—Wikipedia citing a source that derives its material from Wikipedia" WP:CIRCULAR

Dwanyewest (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Shorinji Kempo. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 02:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Shorinji Kempo, although Shorinji Kempo could use some reliable sourcing. Papaursa (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organization does appear to fail GNG indeed, and lacks third party coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 04:47, 3 March 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.