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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buah pukul

[edit]

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

Notability is in question - the only references are to the groups website. Part of the problem is constant revision of edits to a copyviolation of the groups website. I would cause a deletion due to copyvio but perhaps this debate will clarify things. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found passing mentions of this in lists of martial arts, but no significant coverage. Currently the article has no independent sources. Questionable notability, no significant coverage, and lack of independent sources all contribute to my vote. There's also a COI issue.Mdtemp (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I returned it to the clean version with tags intact (again). Was contacted by the author - maybe he understood. This still has problems though.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current version of the article has no sources and this style doesn't seem to meet WP:MANOTE either. The organization's website lists 3 training locations worldwide. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found and added a reference from a well known and reliable author of the martial arts. I am starting to lean towards Keep.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, the question isn't whether it exists, it's whether it's notable. I'd call the source you found a passing mention in a book dedicated to listing every martial art in the world. Can you show me some significant, independent coverage or how it meets WP:MANOTE? Papaursa (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm usually all for deleting articles on insignificant martial arts, but this one might need some clarification. Buah pukul is well-known in Malaysia, at least in name. Its fame is, admittedly, mostly by virtue of being the mother of Lian padukan, which is one of Malaysia's four biggest silat schools. But even aside from lian padukan, buah pukul is the origin of various other styles. Among Malaysians who are familiar with silat, the distinct moves of buah pukul are easily recognized and even imitated. You could compare this to Wing Chun among people who are familiar with Chinese martial arts. Speaking of which, buah pukul is actually closely related to Wing Chun. The undeniable similarity between them despite being practiced independently of each other for an entire century is, in my opinion, quite noteworthy from a historical perspective because it clearly points to a common origin. Of course, the article will need to be improved, but I don't think deleting is the solution. Morinae (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That still all appears to be heresay. Where are the reliable sources? It may be best if this article is userfied. I'm not a big fan of keeping articles in mainspace hoping that some significant coverage will show up. Papaursa (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be remembered that silat is still relatively obscure outside Southeast Asia. Even the most well-known styles like Perisai Diri and Seni Gayong get very little coverage in writing. And in their countries of origin, books on martial arts are rarely written. Buah pukul was mentioned in some Malay TV programs about martial arts, but that's about it as far as reliable sources go. But with that said, I do see your point and I frankly wouldn't see the article's deletion as a substantial loss. Morinae (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll let the author's comments on the talk page of this discussion speak for themselves--"this art it hasn't been covered until now at all and that's we're attempting to do" and "If we could get another source to back us up online we would, but the point is this hasn't been made public at all in the west since its creation and the only source of notability we have is our own website." I think it's clear there's a COI, a lack of reliable sources, questionable notability, and that this falls under WP:NOT. Papaursa (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources or supported claims of notability. Jakejr (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet V requirements which trump N and GNG for factual recognition, it is largely unsourced and must be addressed, but as a whole, it cannot be. The reference is trivial and doesn't back the material, calling it the Buah Pukul system. Userify is also an option at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the author says there are no other sources, I don't see the point of userfying (is that a word?). Of course it could be recreated if sources become available. Jakejr (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2013 (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.