- 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vo Binh Dinh (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)
Unreferenced article that gives no reason why its subject is notable. Geocities and Wikipedia are not reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 15:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article does not make a case for notability and has no reliable sources. It was unreferenced when put up for PROD, but the sources added were a Wikipedia article and a number of references to dead links at Geocities. I couldn't find reliable sources to show it passes WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment It's in a martial arts encyclopedia[1], a memoir of Vietnam[2] and a museum in Vietnam is known for demonstrations of it[3]. Vietnam still has a relatively poor Internet presence, at least with sites in English, so it's not surprising the "Google footprint" of its things will be less.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any sources that talk about the art other than in a passing mention? Its existence isn't in question, only its notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain. Not sure these two do either.[4][5] I'm just very hesitant to apply strict standards to things in the Third World because their Internet presence is obviously going to be less. Still I'll back off a bit.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to back off. If you can provide sources showing notability, even if they're not on the internet, I'd be happy to change my vote. Even if the article is deleted, it can be recreated if you can provide sourcing. Papaursa (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain. Not sure these two do either.[4][5] I'm just very hesitant to apply strict standards to things in the Third World because their Internet presence is obviously going to be less. Still I'll back off a bit.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I was waiting to see if any more references would be given. Based on what's been given, I have to say that notability has not been shown. Astudent0 (talk) 20:26, 28 June 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.