Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen Do Kai (3rd nomination)

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. —Cryptic 22:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Do Kai

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

This is a non-notable martial art with no independent sources. I don't know how this article has survived two previous deletion discussions.Jakejr (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Looks like it survived as Could Be Improved and No Consensus, on the basis of Keep !votes with some rather weak reasons. One !voter commented that (Australian Google) returns more hits, which was true. They seem to be mainly blog-like sites. A couple of the hits might count as RS, like [1] and [2]. The 2nd one was Australia's largest martial arts magazine, which had a paywalled profile of Bob Jones. This is some confirmation of a comment by another !voter, who said that he had seen it mentioned often in martial arts print media. In general, online sources and the sources in the article now seem to be pretty poor. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. At best this art gets a passing mention. I also don't see anything to show it's a notable martial art based on the criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previous deletion discussions did not address the shameful state of the article, which does no service to readers looking for information on this subject. Shii (tock) 18:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG since there's no significant independent coverage of this style. Also doesn't meet WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - IP User:59.101.70.154 redirected the page to Richard Norton (actor). ansh666 08:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it back while AfD ongoing - this particular Redirect would be incorrect (backwards).Peter Rehse (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's interesting that Norton's article doesn't even mention Zen Do Kai. Papaursa (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong keepTake a look at the australia google results. [3] It shows a lot of notable sources from which are available for the article.CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I see are a lot of hits from related dojos. I don't see the significant independent coverage of the martial art itself that would be necessary to meet GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.