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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Wei Gung Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable recently created martial art. JJL (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — JJL (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

*Keep Seems notable enough, found plenty of reliable sources LetsdrinkTea 16:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete upon further review of the sources non of them seem to be reliable, making the whole article unverifiable. LetsdrinkTea 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Funny. I read the sources and i see no reliable ones or an establishment of notability. Looks like advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets notability requirements, there being enough reliable, independent sources. There's even an Academy of Wu Wei Gung Fu in Florida. Jd027^talk 18:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep as the article establishes its notability within the world through the means of independant, third-party sources discussing the subject of the article. ThemFromSpace 20:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note that the cited book is by Outskirt Press, a self-publishing site [1]. The other sources are all websites, including "The JKD Brotherhood Store" and a Seattle area Kung Fu school's site. These don't seem like WP:RS to me, nor do they seem to establish WP:N. JJL (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ouch, I hadn't realised that. Switched to delete per lack of reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 14:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• cmt Themfromspace: Your earlier delete is struck though. Your most recent comment is switched to delete though you haven't bolded, and it would be hard to understand what you mean at this point. (you argued for delete, struck through, and then argued for delete). Can you clarify?Bali ultimate (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, I struck out my keep vote and added my delete vote where the keep vote used to be. I then commented below why I did that. ThemFromSpace 13:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Cmt not a single reliable source. Conflicts of interest with the kung fu marketting websites, rendering all of this completely unverifiable. "Even has a school in florida?" Really?Bali ultimate (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: If this article is deleted please note the following redirects: Wu wei gung - fu, Wu - wei gung fu, Wu - Wei Gung - Fu, Wu-Wei Gung-Fu, Wu-wei gung fu. JJL (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of reliable sources, apparent lack of notability, very likely some level of SPAM / COI. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice against article reposting if notable external sources on the school appear. LK (talk) 09:51, 24 March 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.