Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of karate styles

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of karate styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is high in original research and severly lacking in third person sources Dwanyewest (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion This would be better discussed on the article talk page rather than going direct to AFD. This article is a summary table: every entry has an article that is well-sourced. It would be valid to discuss if there should be a summary table but there is no question of original reseach, notability or reliable sources. I suggest that this AFD be withdrawn as premature. jmcw (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since I see nothing current at this article's talk page, I'll make my comments here. Personally, I think this table is a good idea. However, if it's going to be a stand-alone article it needs its own sources. It just can't be assumed to be reliably sourced because the style articles are. Papaursa (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Use references from the underlying style articles. The article is source-able. jmcw (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Jmcw37.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree article is sourceable. Papaursa (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep comparison tables aren't necessarily unencyclopedic by definition, we have others for software. Someone will have to source all that, and while I don't envy the task I also doubt it's impossible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:52, 29 January 2011 (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.