Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empty Force (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 09:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Force

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This went through an AfD nomination two years ago with the consensus being 'Keep based on more information being out there than the single source of the so-called Master. The remaining information out there are forums and blogs and there has been no addition or expansion to the artilce. I see nothing to demonstrate that the concept is notable and anything more than an English term used by some to describe terms in broader usage. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article serves only to promote and dignify a completely non-notable concept. Worst I have seen in a long time. --_nonsense ferret 21:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The article has issues but a Google search turns up quite a few articles criticizing and denouncing the concept. That is a strong indicator of notability. It may be difficult to rewrite this article with WP:NPOV in mind, but not impossible. Ivanvector (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be more convincedof notability if third party reliable sources could be found.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On reviewing the sources that I could find, I wasn't able to confirm that any were independent either of the "Masters" or of schools which claim to teach the Empty Force. I'm not very familiar with this subject area, but after reviewing the criteria listed at WP:WPMA/N I have to change my !vote to delete. Paul Dong is not notable on his own and does not confer notability on this, the history of Empty Force is not externally verifiable, there is no indication that there are a notably large number of students or followers, and although there does seem to be some indication of its use in MMA tournaments this is dubious at best. Ivanvector (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Hocus_Pocus_(magic). Datavortex (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a non-notable neologism and offers a small amount of encyclopedic content that is backed up by reliable sources. Mkdw ^talk 03:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said at the first AfD discussion, there's a lack of significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism without independent coverage. jmcw (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage independent of Dong, who is likewise non-notable. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking around for sources, I find nothing that establishes notability of the articles topic. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2013 (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.