Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Shotokan Karate Union

1. "International Tournament Report". Shotokan Karate Magazine (SKM Publications) (6): 34. February 1986.
2. Kirkham, Derick (1991). Complete Coaching Manual for the Martial Arts. Yudansha Press. p. 12.
   ISBN 9780951616314
   .
3. "SKU the happy alliance". Fighting Talk (What's On Publications) (4): 11–12. 1985.
4. "Interview with the Shotokan Karate Union Director of Coaching". Combat (Fleetex Print) 13 (4): 52–57. March 1987.
5. "Shotokan in the Streets". Traditional Karate (Fleetex Print) 1 (2): 27–30. July 1987.
6. "SKU Coaching Award Scheme". Fighting Talk (What's On Publications) (5): 24. 1985.
7. "Karate Unity". Sport Karate Scene (Murrain Sports) 1 (2): 47. January 1990.
8. "International Budo Meeting". Fighters (Peterson Publishing) 10 (3): 92. March 1987.
9. "SKU Invitation Tournament". Fighters (Peterson Publishing) 13 (1): 87. January 1990.
10. "Japan v England". SKU Quarterly (50). February 2013.
11. "Tournament Report 100 Trophy League". SKU Quarterly (45). November 2011.

Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! what very lengthy, time consuming, highly subjectively slanted attempt at a forensic deconstruction of an article. Wordage wise its well up to your previous communications, i know this to be fact as you have paid an unhealthy interest in my articles from day one. However, the use of your choice of subjective language and your unsubstantiated assumptions may misguidedly lead those readers who are uneducated to the world of the martial arts, to falsely assume that everything you assert is backed by empirical evidence, that however, by several of your own statements is obviously not the case, as your subjective argument lacks impartiality and is sadly inerrantly flawed. Having read all the referenced articles firsthand myself and did not rely on the instability and inaccuracies of the internet to prove or disprove the cited references, I am completely satisfied that they are relevant, accurate, valid and from reliable and tangible sources. So to insert some balance back to your slanted pontifications, i will for the benefit of the impartial readers only, comment below. What a pity you didn't invest the same time and gusto in looking for impartial answers during your very length demolition piece. Rachael murray (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated Assumptions.

if you couldn't find many of the references and haven't read them you shouldn't jump to the wrong assumption that they are trivial? Rachael murray (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rachael murray: This is a talk page. It meant to discuss assumptions, even unsubstantiated ones. Other editors will read my demolition piece of slanted pontifications as you called it and then decide for themselves. Thank you for your comments and the links you've provided. Other editors will look at them as well and evaluate them.

I'm not sure if you've read the AfD page yet, but the SKU article was nominated for deletion by

Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG). "Trivial" and "independent" are not my slanted words. They are words used and defined in those guidelines and they are the words being used by other editors to describe the cited sources. I am glad you are satisfied that the cited sources are relevant, accurate and valid, but other editors need to be convinced as well. The very first sentence of WP:ORG is: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." That standard, which has been determined through a consensus of the Wikipedia community at large, is what needs to be satisfied. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This source is listed as "'International Tournament Report'. Shotokan Karate Magazine (SKM Publications) (6): 34. February 1986." and is being used to cite the name of the organization. There is no link for the source provided, but it says it comes from Shotokan Karate Magazine. I've tried googling "Shotokan Karate Magazine" and "SKM Productions" and they appear to exist. Even so, this just appears to be "the season schedule or final score from sporting events" per "WP:ORGDEPTH" and, therefore, is not sufficient to establish notability. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated Assumptions.

"appears to be "the season schedule or final score from sporting events"

It would be difficult to come to an impartial conclusion when you were unable to find it and therefore was unable to read it?

Subjective assertions.

"they appear to exist" No, they do exist and are a well known publishers that has a reputation for featuring notable shotokan karate organisations.

Link.

http://ma-mags.com/showmag.php?TitleCde=ShKa

Rachael murray (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2: "Complete Coaching Manual for the Martial Arts"

This one has an ISBN number so it's fairly easy to check for author, date, publishing company type of information. More difficult, however, to verify

Rachael murray (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source 3: "SKU the happy alliance"

This is said to come from the publication Fighting Talk by "What's On Publications". I've tried googling both the article name, and the publishing company name but found nothing. I did see on the Yudansha Press page I mentioned above for source 2 that Kirkham has written a series of books titled Fighting Talk [1][2][3][4][5] so maybe what is being cited? If that's the case, then this would also appear to be from a source that is not independent and, therefore, not really useful for establishing notability. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective assertions.

"This is said to come from" No, it does come from

"not really useful for establishing notability" no reference in isolation can do that, especially if one has a subjective approach to assessment.

Rachael murray (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source 4: "Interview with the Shotokan Karate Union Director of Coaching"

This is supposed to be an interview in a publication called "Combat" published by "Fleetex Print". Nothing comes up in a google search of "Fleetex Print" related to martial arts except for the SKU's Wikipedia article. There was an interview with Kirkham with the same title that was published in the SKU Quarterly Journal [6] [7], but I am not sure if this is just a reprint or vice versa. Again, it's hard to verify because there is no direct link to the article, and if the "Combat" is just a reprint of the SKU page, then it would not be considered independent. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated Assumptions.

"it's hard to verify because there is no direct link to the article" i like how you have not allowed your lack of knowledge to get in the way of you making rash subjective assumptions and assertions throughout.

Subjective assertions.

"This is supposed to be an interview in a publication called "Combat""

Combat is a publication that has been going since september 1974

"Nothing comes up in a google search" this highlights what a poor results from searching has been produced but i understand that there are only so many hours in day and you must have spent a very long period of time on this project, so to help out i have given you a link below

"I am not sure if this is just a reprint or vice versa" But I am sure, so, to educate and keep you in the loop, the cited reference is not the same interview as Part 1 of Interview with D Kirkham, SKU Director of Coaching. Neither is the same interview as Part 2 Interview with D Kirkham, SKU Director of Coaching, that appeared in SKU QUarterly magazine, neither is it the same interview that appeared in Traditional Karate magazine, they are all different interviews.

Link.

http://ma-mags.com/showmag.php?TitleCde=C

Rachael murray (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source 5: "Shotokan in the Streets"

Found this page from the SKU's Quarterly Journal. Reference lists publication as "Traditional Karate", but I think that might have been misinterpreted from this statement from the article: "Stills from the videos were successfully reproduced and serialised in "Traditional Karate and Combat" magazines." because I googled and cannot find a company called "Fleetex Print" which published a magazine called "Traditional Karate". So, this one also does not seem to be independent from the SKU. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated Assumptions.

just because you cant find it doesn't make your assumption true, i have therefore supplied a link for those impartial readers who are unable to find it or those who are uninclined towards using impartiality in their reasoning process. Traditional Karate was a journal of repute from june 1987 until it was incorporated into Combat magazine in september 2009.

Subjective assertions.

"I think that might have been misinterpreted" I don't think that as there is no misrepresentation the cited reference refers to the magazine editors published text as read in tradition karate magazine and not the passing reference made to it in the SKU Quarterly.

Link.

http://ma-mags.com/showmag.php?TitleCde=TrKa

Rachael murray (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source 6: "SKU Coaching Award Scheme"

Like source 3, this is supposed to be from an issue of Fighting Talk by "What's On Publications". Once again, there's no link so it's hard to verify. This could also be from the "Fighting Talk" books written by Kirkham referred to in source 3, which would mean it was not independent of the SKU. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective language.

"this is supposed to be"

Rachael murray (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source 7: "Karate Unity"

I had no luck googling the article name but I did find this when googling "Murain Sports". It seems to be a martial arts equipment dealer and a karate school, but it doesn't look like a publishing company at all. Maybe they self-published something, but I doubt that would qualify as a reliable source. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated Assumptions.

"I had no luck googling the article name but I did find this when googling "Murain Sports". As you had no luck googling ive supplied a link.

"It seems to be a martial arts equipment dealer and a karate school, but it doesn't look like a publishing company at all." Looks can be deceptive and murrain sports is a well respected martial arts supplier that also ran a magazine named sport karate scene from 1989 until it changed its name to inside martial arts in 1992. I see how ignorance of the facts can be a handicap.

Subjective assertions.

"I doubt that would qualify as a reliable source" as the reference refers to the exact topic i disagree with your assertion, especially in the light of your ignorance to the detail.

Link.

http://ma-mags.com/showmag.php?TitleCde=SKS

Rachael murray (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source 8: "International Budo Meeting"

This is said to come from Fighters magazine by "Peterson Publishing". There's no link so it's hard to verify. I found this from googling "Peterson Publishing", but I have no way of knowing is they are the same. I also googled "Fighters magazine" and found this Facebook page, but that seems to be primarily about MMA. Also found Fighters Only Magazine] but that too seems to be about MMA. Googling the article name also didn't help. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated Assumptions.

"I have no way of knowing is they are the same" Obviously if you couldn't find them, so to help out i have listed a link for the impartial readers benefit.

Link.

"There's no link so it's hard to verify" Originally links were supplied for all of the references, but that format wasn't to your liking and it was you personally who altered all the references to their current format. However, there were a couple of mistaken transpositions made by yourself, so they had to be re-edited to ensure that they were correct and not a misrepresentation.

http://ma-mags.com/showmag.php?TitleCde=F

Rachael murray (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clean up the references with this edit according to

mainspace, and those edits have been to clean up formatting, etc. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This report is supposed to come from Fighters, but it is a tournament reports so like source 1 it appears to be trivial coverage per "WP:ORGDEPT". - Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective assertions.

"This report is supposed to come from"

"but it is a tournament reports so like source 1 it appears to be trivial coverage"

As the reference refers to a tournament report in a section of the article that refers to Competitions, not only is it NOT trivial it is valid and exactly the reference for that section.

Rachael murray (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source 10: "Japan v England"

Another report about a tournament/event. This one is said to come from SKU Quarterly which the SKU's official magazine which means it is not independent. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective assertions.

Assertions of triviality again under this section are unwarranted as the reference refers to the exact event mentioned in a section of the article that refers to a Japan v England event, not only is it NOT trivial it is valid and exactly the reference for that section, no matter that it comes from the SKU Quarterly Magazine

Rachael murray (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source 11: "Tournament Report 100 Trophy League"

Another tournament report from SKU Quarterly, so like source 10 this is not independent and is considered to be trivial. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective assertions.

"like source 10 this is not independent and is considered to be trivial"

the reference is from the SKU Quarterly Magazine and refers specifically to the event in the text of the article.

This like many of the lengthy communication exchanges with you over the period of time, it has proven to be a pointless time expensive exercise for me, especially when it is evident from your choice of subjective assumptions, assertions and language that no matter what sources are supplied that they would be viewed by yourself as unsuitable. I understand that notability etc is a subjective point of view and therefore, i have previously given you latitude based on the understanding that it would be impossible for you to know everything about the vast array of subjects that you have passed assertive comments on, i refer to those that are listed in your contributions list. I also understood that the martial arts is by your own admission in a previous communication, not one of your topics, and as time has gone by you have supplied firm evidence to back up your claim. But exchanges such as this must stop, because as a single vulnerable woman using her real name. I find your over keen interest in my contributions and your omnipresence from day one rather creepy, especial when you describe yourself in your user page as "being a voyeur who lurks in the shadows and watches from afar". So thank you for your contributions thus far but i feel it to be better if I were to break communication with you at this point. And allow genuine impartial readers to decide, therefore, i will leave the process to take its course, and at this point I am myself undecided to which way to vote.

Rachael murray (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an exchange with you. It was a post on the talk page of an ongoing AfD discussion. I made no mention of you until you posted here of your own accord. All of the comments I made were about content (the cited sources) and I said nothing about you as a contributor or a person at all. In fact, I don't think I've ever commented about you personally in anyway at all on Wikipedia so your taking a quote fromincorrectly quoting and mischaracterizing my userpage (It actually says "No longer content with just being a voyeur who lurks in the shadows and watches from afar, I have decided to tear down my wall and try to use the little knowledge that I possess for the benefit of Mr. Kite (or humankind). ...), and using it to sort of imply that I am interested in you or your contributions for reasons other than

WP:REALNAME before choosing your username, but you can request that it be changed at Wikipedia:Changing username if you prefer to be referred to in another way. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC); (Edited post to add clarifiction about my userpage. Added text is underlined and replaced text is stricken out. - 02:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC))[reply

]

boomerang

, though. What I see is a more experienced editor choosing to assist a newer one, nothing else.

I also tend to lurk, to watch over the boards, and choose to speak and contribute only rarely. This is a perfectly reasonable form of participation on Wikipedia. I am not an expert on Martial Arts, but I do know what

reliable sources are. Marchjuly's assessment of the references supplied are on the mark. The fact that he has taken the time to examine all of these references is to his credit. ScrapIronIV (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Clicking "books" gives Karate Do Way of the Empty Hand which mentions the SKU, but this only is a "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization" because it simply says: "Sensei Enoeda, the chief instructor of the Shotokan Karate Union of Great Britain uses a code which urges his students to: (....)". Does not seem to represent significant coverage at all.
2. Clicking "newspapers" gets hits for "Shotokan Karate", "Shotokan Karate Federation", "Union", etc., etc. but nothing specifically for "Shotokan Karate Union".
3. Clicking "news" gets "Karate Team to compete in Albania" but this appears to be about the "World Shotokan Karate Union" (WSKU) and not the SKU. Other search hits also appear to be about the WSKU and not the SKU.

Is the WSKU just another name for the SKU or are they completely different organizations? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are different organizations. Papaursa (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]