Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martial arts equipment

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. Courcelles 00:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martial arts equipment

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

This article was created in 2006 for advertising, the advertising links come off and get put back on, (which is not cause for deletion, just history). The article fails

WP:NOTDICT, as it offers little beyond a brief description of a group of products, most of which have stand alone articles. The article has been tagged as prod and speedy, Other then the off and on adverting links it has been unreferenced since creation. Jeepday (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inconceivable that any of its content wouldn't belong elsewhere. EEng (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicates the category. Maybe listify? Mangoe (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here that is not (or could not) already be duplicated elsewhere, and insufficient material to justify a stand-alone article. I have merged the list of items into the martial arts article. Janggeom (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTDICT is specifically for articles that only serve as a dictionary definition for the subject, yet this article goes (slightly) beyond that by having a list of equiptment used in the martial arts. I think semiprotection might be necessary if there is a long history of spam, but I still think this article can eventually be helpful. And I would prefer that it be in prose to a list. Lists degenerate very quickly and are less encyclopedic than prose articles. I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping the article in its current state until its worked on some more. Them From Space 18:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been tagged as unsourced for over 4 years. Its contents are listed in the more appropriate article on martial arts. There is no reason for this standalone article. Jakejr (talk) 05:58, 26 December 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.