Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bok Fu Do (2nd 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bok Fu Do

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

Previously speedied as a copy vio. Fails WP:MANOTE and WP:ORG. Gnews got a total of 3 returns, 1 of which had nothing to do with the topic. General lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Article cites 2 sources, both of which are owned by the subject. Has been tagged for notability since 2008. Note that this should not be confused with the earlier "bok fu". This style was founded later as a seperate one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree; appears to fail WPMA/N. Janggeom (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no claims of notability except for being a "world renowned system". When I searched I could find no independent reliable sources on this art and the article gives no sources that meet WP:RS. Seems to fail WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:49, 12 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.