| Revision as of 14:12, 2 June 2009 editVBGFscJUn3 (talk | contribs)5,058 edits →Gun Kata: WP:INTERESTING← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:55, 2 June 2009 edit undoWrestlinglover (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,060 edits →Gun KataNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''Keep:''' I somewhat agree with Northwestgnome, but I find this interesting, and has been done in enough films and even though this is probably crystal, it will probably be used in many more to come. With enough work, it could be a very good article.--]] 04:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | *'''Keep:''' I somewhat agree with Northwestgnome, but I find this interesting, and has been done in enough films and even though this is probably crystal, it will probably be used in many more to come. With enough work, it could be a very good article.--]] 04:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :*Personal ] is not a valid reason to keep an article, and without reliable secondary sources it can never be a good article. --] <font size="-2">(]/])</font> 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | :*Personal ] is not a valid reason to keep an article, and without reliable secondary sources it can never be a good article. --] <font size="-2">(]/])</font> 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::*I'm not basing my keep on interest. I'm basing it on usage. It has been done in enough films and has gained a following. Third party sources are probably out there, but it involves people looking hard enough. Sometimes primary sources are the best sources to use. Primary sources didn't stop me from getting ] to FL. Now yes, third party sources help establish notability, but there is always another step. Something can get major interest from people, but is so insignificant that it doesn't really needs its own article. But there is enough sorces out there. Thinking plainly on sources the entire time, really isn't correct.--]] 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:55, 2 June 2009
Gun Kata
AfDs for this article:- Gun Kata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Trivial OR (also unreferenced of course) that only recounts plot details from the film Equilibrium, totally redundant to Gun Fu. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Ryan4314 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Ryan4314 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Ryan4314 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Merge to Gun Fu of which it seems to be a sub-branch. Besides having no secondary reliable sources this is about a fictional martial art which serves as a element in a couple of movies. No need for WP to have so much detail on it since this is supposed to be a general encyclopedia, not a movie fan site or a how-to guide for movie makers. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Merge into the parent article per Northwestgnome. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: I somewhat agree with Northwestgnome, but I find this interesting, and has been done in enough films and even though this is probably crystal, it will probably be used in many more to come. With enough work, it could be a very good article.--WillC 04:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Personal interest is not a valid reason to keep an article, and without reliable secondary sources it can never be a good article. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not basing my keep on interest. I'm basing it on usage. It has been done in enough films and has gained a following. Third party sources are probably out there, but it involves people looking hard enough. Sometimes primary sources are the best sources to use. Primary sources didn't stop me from getting this to FL. Now yes, third party sources help establish notability, but there is always another step. Something can get major interest from people, but is so insignificant that it doesn't really needs its own article. But there is enough sorces out there. Thinking plainly on sources the entire time, really isn't correct.--WillC 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)