Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T'ien Lung Tao

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 13:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

T'ien_Lung_Tao

An ad for a Canadian martial arts school something. Gets 33 hits on Google. Squidwina 19:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is not a Canadian martial arts school but an entire system of Martial Arts with school in the US, Canada, and Japan.

• Comment The subject may be a system of martial arts, but it doesn't seem like a noteworthy one. The article is an ad nonetheless.Squidwina 21:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 01:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: notability not established, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I've studied the Chinese martial arts for 21 years and I've never heard of it. Regardless, it could still be notable, but what is there doesn't make that case and isn't an encyclopaedia article in the least. Delete. Fire Star 04:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes it isn't a notable one, neither is Pai Lum or Chi Ling Pai Gung Fu which it is descended from. Squidwina thought it was a school and was wrong on that account. What else could Squidwina be wrong about? - Unsigned comment provided by 66.82.9.75.

I too have studied Martial Arts, since 1979. If you don't know who Daniel Pai, Manuel Agrella, Denis Decker, or Bruce Juchnik are then you probably don't know what T'ien Lung Tao is either. An advertisement would require contact information as how to join. What is provided is information about the system with no references as to where to get instruction in said system. So far you are not proving your point very well and showing to be more of the usual, our system is better than yours attitude. The fact is that no system is better than another. What can be better about a system is the scientific Theories it employs as a basis for its modality. Better questions result in better answers. I thought this place was supposed to be about information, not a place to flame. - Unsigned comment provided by 66.82.9.75.

This is a place for Wikipedia's editors to decide if the article should be kept. Fire Star 18:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you have an issue with an entry please be qualitative and quantitative about said post. Sweeping statements show a lack of ability to prove your point - Unsigned comment provided by 66.82.9.75.

Dear 66.82.9.75, my "sweeping statement" was admitting that I didn't know if the style was notable and I provided a context for that statement as well as saying that the article itself doesn't meet my standards for an encyclopaedia. I didn't say that I thought the style itself was good or not. I also said that I thought the article wasn't up to standards, and voted to delete it not just on the actual construction of the article (which can be fixed easily enough) but also informed by the context that I have indeed never heard of the style in all my years of training, judging tournaments and travelling to China. It is a new style invented by a Westerner and doesn't meet my standards for notability because of its newness, not its technical basis. I also considered your uncalled-for comments about Squidwina. I hope for your sake that such a tone isn't indicative of the philosophy of the art you espouse. That is my explanation, as you requested, and I have been shown no reason to change my vote as yet. I'm sorry that you felt that I also deserved a defensive response. I recommend that you read up on Wikilove. Fire Star 18:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Variety of Kung fu. Has a hit for a related book on Amazon.com. —Brim 17:46, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm working on this with the original author to make it more suitable for an encyclopaedia by attaching history and an outline of its precepts. Muhuli 22:35, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

If the article is improved significantly AND evidence of notablilty provided (only 9 Google hits doesn't look good for it) I will change my vote. And please advise our unsigned friend on Wikiquette. Fire Star 23:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear “Fire Star”...

"it is a new style invented by a Westerner and doesn't meet my standards" sums up your argument and makes this appear as a personal issue, hence the seeming defensiveness. As I understand it, Wikipedia as a concept is supposed to be a living source of information. In this way, Wikipedia seems to embody a source of collective knowledge rather than a realm of personal myopic ramblings. Cataloging only what you feel is important leaves others to do without new and possibly desirable information, which seems to be contradictory to the concept of an open body of knowledge. As we are new here, it would be more constructive to assist us in sharing our information appropriately. We seek to share the history behind T'ien Lung Tao. We are not interested in ego conflicts.

We will continue to make revisions and if you wish to assist us that would be more helpful than what has been offered thus far.

Please note that we have added links to those persons and systems that have connections to T'ien Lung Tao. Many have been extremely influential throughout the Martial Arts world in the last 50 years ragardless whether or not you have personally heard of them. Our goal is to present only factual information in an unbiased way. If what we post does not come through that way please make exact reference to the issue so that we may clarify or remedy it accordingly. I am studying the Wikietiquette as you can see by my new signing. I have read up on Wikilove and haven’t seen much of it yet.AnDruidh 21:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have been a student of the martial arts for more than twenty years and have been a referee and judge on the open tournament circuit for a large part of that time. During my years of training, I was taught by virtually all of my instructors that an open mind was one of my greatest tools as well as one of my strongest weapons. Nothing should be taken at its face value nor should it be dismissed out of hand. Unfortunately, I have seldom seen this lesson put into practice by many of my colleagues. With this in mind, I undertook a little research into the art of T’ien Lung Tao.

I had the distinct honour and privilege of meeting Grand Master Dennis Decker several years ago and trained with him on a couple of occasions shortly before his untimely death. Master Decker was a great innovator and leader on the cutting edge of martial arts education in North America if not the entire world. I had never met with anyone in the martial arts more noteworthy and remarkable…until now.

I met with Mr. Bober (his students call him Professor) and several of the instructors of T’ien Lung Tao, and have found that the system is indeed noteworthy and remarkable. The standard of education in their martial arts is beyond anything I have previously experienced and the quality of instruction is exceptional.

I also reviewed a number of entries (not exclusively martial arts) in the Wikipedia site as well as other sites of a similar nature. I find that the outline of T’ien Lung Tao is not very different from many other similar articles that have been accepted for some time.

Granted, T’ien Lung Tao has, until recently, been rather unknown, unremarked and little noticed. I am reminded of another small organization of printers and bicycle makers who were unknown, unremarkable, and of little note until one cold, windy day in 1903 at a little-known place called Kitty Hawk.

Keep the article. Snowbear 05:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. - Greetings:

As this site is open to anyone, thus the danger of having “anyone” posting. This can be either positive or negative. To observe these statements, knowing full well that there was no serious form of research done is a shame and a miscarriage of justice.

We have already seen statements made that were proven false. One individual has already made mention that in all of his years of training and judging he has never heard of it! We do not know the validity and quality of those years, yet it seems ironic that we are to believe his argument based on that he has not heard of it.

An extensive amount of martial artists have never even heard of a system known as Hanko-ryu. This system was created in Okinawa, and its founder would become one of the most famous Okinawan karate instructors of all time. Several movies were made based on his character.

This system is hardly even known today. Hanko-ryu (Half-Hard style) was created by Chojun Miyagi. Of course several years after creating hanko-ryu, he re-modeled it into what is now known as Goju-ryu. Most Goju-ryu stylists do not even know this.

In China, there are literally hundreds of martial arts systems, and the earlier commentary on never having heard of the style presupposes that the individual has extensively researched all of them.

I think there should not be a major focus on the history of the system but the information presented, which is hardly even discussed in martial arts circles. Having been in the martial arts for a couple of DECADES, having traveled across North America, I can name many systems that you may not have heard about.

Furthermore, disagreeing with the post just because the system was founded in the US strongly suggests a serious ethnic misconception of movement and motion. I am sorry but Orientals do not own human anatomy and physics.

I suggest you keep this post, and perhaps even learn from it by actually researching some of the material mentioned in it. - jadescorpion

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.