Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapido Realismo Kali
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus to delete. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rapido Realismo Kali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable martial art User234 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, this is one of a bazillion made up "martial arts". JBsupreme (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 06:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is a reasonably well-known art as FMAs go. Sources include FMA Digest Vol 1. No. 3 and Vol. 3 No. 2 ([1]), with passing mentions in other issues. JJL (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see a lot of referring to a single source, namely a single issue of a relatively obscure publication. No question it exists, but I don't see where notability is being established. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm sorry, this is the author of the page(Am I allowed to share my thoughts here?). Rapido Realismo Kali is a not a made-up martial art. I gave citations and sources, everything that whoever's helping me edit was asking for. And the publication previously stated, the FMA Digest is very well-known in Filipino Martial Arts circles. Please look into it again and reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kali practitioner (talk • contribs) 09:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable third person information can be found I don't think using websites such as these [2] count as reliable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:04, 23 February 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.