Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qwan Ki Do

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. The consensus is that there is a lack of reliable sourcing to demonstrate that this martial art meets the notability guidelines. Incidentally, no one has said that the martial art does not exist, merely that it does not meet the criteria for inclusion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qwan Ki Do

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

Non-notable martial art with no references and no attempt to demonstrate uniqueness Peter Rehse (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article certainly could use improvement, but this is a legitimate martial art with notable and unique characteristics. Minfo (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is written like an advertisement, but nonetheless, the article does not include any reliable sources. A quick Google search indicates mostly Facebook and YouTube results. -- Luke (Talk) 23:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources--even the organization's home page is under construction. My search found no independent sources to support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep article does seem like n advertisement, however it is a real martial art. The page needs to be restructured Mizziman (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically an unsourced article that gives no indication of notability. To those who voted keep because it exists, mere existence does not show WP notability, especially with no reliable sources. Mdtemp (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2012 (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.