Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMAA Who's Who in the Martial Arts Hall of Fame

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AMAA Who's Who in the Martial Arts Hall of Fame

[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)

I cannot see enough international coverage to justify notability. The article seems to be written as an advert/puff piece for the linked people and organisation. Mountaincirque^talk 11:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mountaincirque^talk 11:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Martial arts. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see any real notability to it. Was created by a user who has since been blocked for using Wikipedia as a means to promote their friends and acquaintances and I think this falls under that. Canterbury Tail talk 12:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would it possible to incorporate some of the article's content into American Martial Arts Alliance? Obviously all the tables in their entirety couldn't be incorporated, but perhaps one summary section of prose could work. The main concern with doing something like that though is I'm not sure the article about the organization itself even meets WP:NORG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BY all means take any references that you think are valid and write a sentence or two in that article. Frankly though I think that that page too is on the borderline of being deleted. Most national Karate/martial arts associations are not notable, and these ones particularly seem to mostly focus on 'peacocking' other martial artists. In this case they seem to be piggy-backing heavily on Norris and Rothrock for example, maybe under the impression that having given an award to a notable person that they themselves become notable. Mountaincirque^talk 13:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I asked about this article a couple of times at WT:MARTIAL because I wasn't sure about its notability. The first time was around a year ago, but that query never got a response which was fine. The second time was the other day, and someone did reply. The article about the AMAA was created shortly after my first query and I wasn't aware of it until the other day. I had some exchanges in the past with the creator on Wikipedia regarding iffy sources being cited, possible COI and other things as well as on Commons about iffy image licensing related to other content they had created. This article was still on my watchlist since then and popped up when a new SPA account started editing it the other day. I wasn't even aware that the creator had been indef'd until the other day. Anyway, I just made the merge suggestion just to see what others might think since I do think a stand-alone article on the HOF isn't really warranted. Since the main article about the AMAA has serious issues too, perhaps it's not such a great idea to add to them by adding more unsourced content.-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did a bit more Googling for possible sources and I didn't find anything that might be useful. It's possible that there could be some off-line sources which discuss this subject or even its parent organization. I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to MA matters, but I do think there are lots of magazines about the MA and perhaps some of them might have given this HOF some coverage. Such an WP:NEXIST argument would have to be pretty convincing though to justify keeping the article. So, even if it's not notable for a stand-alone article, I then thought it might possibly be a candidate for some kind of merging per WP:FAILORG; that, however, would only make sense if the main article about the parent organization didn't also have some major notability concerns. Unless there's another article to which this can be redirected, I don't even think a redirect is possible. Currently, it links to List of halls and walks of fame#Martial arts, but redirecting to that article would make no sense per MOS:CIRCULAR if the consensus is to delete this article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is basically no independent coverage of this particular hall of fame. A martial arts "hall of fame" is generally not notable because there is no standard and there are so many of them. The coverage here is either by the AMAA itself or of the "so and so was inducted into this hall of fame" variety, none of which shows the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. All of the article's intro is an attempt to show that the hall of fame's creator, Jessie Bowen, is a notable martial artist--but it fails and is irrelevant to the hall's WP notability. Listing the members is an attempt to show notability, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Personally, I see nothing to support having this article on WP. I also looked at the AMAA article and didn't see significant independent coverage there, but that's a topic for another AfD discussion. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2023 (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.