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. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoute[edit]

Non-notable, recent construct. Use of ghists is difficult because the name can refer to many things including peoples surnames and other martial arts. There has been no attempt to assert notability.Peter Rehse 04:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 04:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion of new and non-notable martial arts form. Major contributor is Martinclewett, while "Martin Clewett" is mentioned as one of the creators of the art. Wikipedia is not for things made up in the dojo one day. No relevant GBooks [1], GScholar [2], or GNews Archive [3] hits. cab 06:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Notability is shown by:

2. What is "ghists"?

3. "the name can refer to many things including peoples surnames and other martial arts" what? Who is called Mr Ryoute? There is an art called Ryute but it's spelt differently both in English and Japanese.

4. Self Promotion. Yes, I've created an art, I've nearly finished a book, and I want the art to be on wikipedia. I've tried to write the article in a neutral way.

5. If the article is deleted I will simply host it on my own website, it makes no difference to the people who type "Ryoute" into google. Thank you Nate1481 for restructuring. Martinclewett 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ghists" is a typo for "Ghits" - "google hits". Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. Articles must be about subjects which are notable, which means that independent reliable sources have covered the subject. Posts in a martial arts forum are not "independent reliable sources". When someone not connected to you writes about Ryoute, feel free to ask someone to write an article about it again. Until then, we should delete this article. Argyriou (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ryoute.com/articles/article001_in_trad_page1.asp is an article published in traditional martial arts magazine. So that is one of your criteria satisfied. Then all I have to do is send the article to user Shantavira who is independent of me and editor of Windhorse Publications and he will then hopefully edit it as he see fit and post it again Martinclewett 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article you wrote is not independent of you, even if it has been screened by an independent editor. Once someone independent of you writes an article in a reliable publication, you'll be partway to multiple independent reliable sources. Argyriou (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've suggested to the author that he might want to move it to his user page - something that has been done for other articles involving original research.Peter Rehse 02:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe author has transfered the article content to his user page.Peter Rehse 14:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Example of ryoute 0001.jpg

Comment "Invented by Shaolin monks to hone their fighting skills, it evolved into a complex set of motions later to be known as swing dancing..." ~ Infrangible 03:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the claim to notability is being slated on Bullshido then it needs to go. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the whole thread all the way through to the end, and then you'll see why Bullshido members were slating it. They thought that I thought it was fighting art. It isn't and I'm not saying it's from Shaolin either. This article is joined to arts catagory not the martial arts catagory.Martinclewett 10:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshido or any other web forums don't fall under the definition of reliable sources. Notability typically refers to discussion by published authors (e.g. in newspapers or books), not discussion by random internet users. cab 10:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that. I am disputing that just because ignorant people said bad things about the art on bullshido that this is a reason to delete a wikipedia article. I accept that web forums do not fall under the category of reliable sources. If the article is going to be deleted then it should be for valid reasons not "if the claim to notability is being slated on Bullshido then it needs to go" as said by Nate. So far the only valid reasons are notable and independent.Martinclewett 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actaully what is said on Bullshido has zero impact. They seem to critisize anything and everything that is outside their narrow view. Ergo discussion on bullshido does not make you Ryote noteable or cause it to be deleted.Peter Rehse 12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was also on the use of forums as sources, I've seen it used in criticisms sections (i.e. what they are) and as a resource for images etc that have been included in threads, but as a source for notability no, hundreds of schools have been discussed (and mostly slated), & if 1 in 10 is individually notable enough for wikipedia I'd be surprised.

In short being discussed on Bullshido dose not make something notable. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a close call, in my opinion. On the one hand, an article about a sport or a game (as this appears to be) isn't non-notable just because it is new, but on the other hand, it does need to exceed some sort of minimal threshold of popularity. That is, it needs to me more than just a game invented among a bunch of friends that created a website about it. Heck, when I was a kid, we invented lots of new games, but the Makefield Elementary School variant of suicide isn't exactly worthy of an encyclopedia article. Even having a dedicated building for the new game, or regular classes for it isn't notable, as I believe we have required specific schools of martial arts to have at least more than a single dojo before becoming notable (all else being equal). So I must conclude that Ryoute must have either multiple training/practice locations, or an independant and published (non-blog/message board) reference. Does it have either of these? Bradford44 14:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wall and Karl Hawkins have a dojo in Sutton Coldfield and myself and Ian Alexander have a dojo in Moseley. BTW to reiterate Ryoute is not a martial art.Martinclewett 12:49, 20 July 2007 (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.