Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Martial Arts

Christian Martial Arts

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article fails the second WP:NOT test of WP:GNG by being an WP:NOESSAY that is full of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The section listing Christian martial arts programs violates WP:NOTDIR. Sources are primary; while there are several self-published sources available, there is no independent, reliable, secondary coverage of this topic on which to base an encyclopedic treatment. (A quick note on the provenance of this page: I draftified it in September during new page review and the creator later returned it to mainspace. Another editor inadvertently draftified it a second time and then reverted per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Hence it is now at AfD.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Martial arts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. This is not ready to be an encyclopedic entry as it is not objective and contains WP:PEACOCK. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is true that the article as it currently stands is more of a sermon than an encyclopedic entry and would need much revision, perhaps on an entry on religious views on martial arts or something of that sort could be created in the future. While I have found articles analyzing martial arts from a Christian perspective (and that is indeed the sourcing being provided), there is not enough quality sourcing and scholarly analysis regarding a martial arts specialty within Christianity to create an encyclopedic article. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rejected three times by three different editors as a draft (on top of at least one regular decline) and for good reason, since there's no sourcing to support the claim that this is a recognised type of martial art. It's all original research. --bonadea contributions talk 23:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

According to the Wikipedia page about editors I read, the first response of an editor is to seek to improve the page to make it acceptable for inclusion. Instead biased opinions have done nothing to encourage correcting the page... just deleting it and a months worth of work goes down the toilet.

It appears that Wikipedia editors pick and choose the parts of the Wikipedia guides that they want to adhere to.

NONE of the article is original research. Bushido77 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus = four of us are in a room and I have $100. The other three agree that I must give them the money and they take it. Consensus got them what they wanted... but the majority does not make it right. Bushido77 (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, decisions are based on consensus, not voting. Consensus is reached through reasoned arguments that demonstrate both the article’s usefulness and its reliance on reliable, independent sources, neither of which this article has. Sorry. Nswix (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bushido, you are WP:SHOUTing again. Remove your bold text from this AfD, and only bold the word keep once, to make it easier for whoever closes this deletion. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i rejected the draft and author decides to move to mainspace. Is complete WP:OR. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Three of the four sources are WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and the fourth is non-notable, so the article fails WP:GNG. DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]