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. j⚛e decker^talk 19:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaze no ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I don't really know how to deal with this. The article includes vast tracks of repetition from existing articles such as the History of Japanese martial arts and different types of martial art which as a first step I would delete. The history of the style as given has serious issues (dare I say made up) - such as claims of Eimishi origin and Koryu status. Looking at the references specifically referring to the art they are all primary. I just can not give a judgment on notability because the truth is too hidden in the cruft. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that this was created on mass by a SPA and looks like it might have come from a dojo website. I could not find the source (so I may be wrong) but my gut says copy paste. Furthermore the subject has been discussed on several forums (eg. e-budo and aikiweb) and the consensus seems to be that it is made up.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article lacks significant independent coverage and my search didn't find any. Jakejr (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's true the article could use a serious rewrite. However, I believe it's a moot point since there appears to be a lack of significant independent coverage. The article appears to have lots of sources, but they don't seem to be independent of the organization and people running it. Papaursa (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2014 (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.