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The result was withdrawn by nominator After significant clean up by user:Verdatum Niteshift36 (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional martial arts[edit]

List of fictional martial arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article has been tagged for lack of sources for over a year. Although fairly well written compared to many lists, it is an indiscriminate list of fictional arts mentioned in movies, books or games amounting to WP:OR in many cases. The list appears to be at odds with WP:NOT#DIR. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, more in need of a clean up & clearing out those without articles, potential for sourcing where articles exist, and the extra info is something a category would not do. --Nate1481 16:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now cleared out not bad and has definite potential. --Nate1481 09:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep reasonable list of a lot of plausible search terms. JJL (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge the provided three references seem to be reliable Rirunmot (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No valid reason for deletion. Major elements in fiction are appropriate for a list, and entries in it are suitable if the work is notable. If it is limited to those in works with WP articles it is not at all indiscriminate. "Indiscriminate" would be all mentioned in any work however trivial. All that is necessary by way of sourcing is to identify just where they are in the work. Better done than most such lists, and certainly many of them are significant plot elements worth articles of their own, if the work is important enough.DGG (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and make sure listings are reliably sourced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did a major rewrite of the article here entries that do not have independent sources. My edit presumed that entries that have their own articles are properly sources there, though I expect many of the terms are linking to generic entries, or redirect to subsections of articles on the work of fiction itself. -Verdatum (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entries in this list are generally going to be WP:PRIMARY sourced bits of trivia, or the occasional entry that has an existing article. If the trivial entries are removed, the list appears to serve very little benefit over a category. -Verdatum (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid reason for deletion. Ohms law (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Excellent index to notable topics so assisting navigation. *Boot to the head* Colonel Warden (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2009 (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.