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 keep. -- RyRy (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okichitaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contetsted prod: reason for PRODing was " advertisement, notability" Maxim_(talk) 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete new art that has gotten some attention but not much. JJL (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mainly an advert maybe minorly notable for the controversy but that's not the focus so delete it.. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is better than when nominated but my opinion that is it is still a promo piece, no longer in tone but in presence, there are some key citations that would be needed to convince me otherwise. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep it needs to be cleaned-up and sourced, I seem to remember an article a year or so back in Black Belt Magazine.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It blows my mind that this DOESN'T have significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. I don't know if this can help at all. I have also added the rescue tag to the article. DigitalC (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I originally speedy'd it and then endorsed the prod, but I've been convinced that the article is rescueable. I'm in the process of removing a lot of the over-promotional language in it. Once that's gone, and it's better referenced, the article should look quite nice.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Removed a lot of the overly promotional language and re-ordered some of the sections to make it more like an encyclopedia article and less like a brochure. I think it should pass muster now.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also re-worked the lead section to include some of the criticism.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As far as I can tell Okichitaw is the only martial art that claims any indigenous *and* is associated with a credible North American aboriginal organization (in this case, the Native Canadian Centre in Toronto). That definitely makes it notable (and no, I don't have any contact with this school). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.139.169 (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Its a poor article, but it has some notability RogueNinja_talk 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it can be saved.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong Keep It seems notable to me.Kitty53 (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2008 (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.