Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo Man Kam

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. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Man Kam

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

There's nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE. Most of the article deals with his relationship to Yip Man but notability is not inherited. Jakejr (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yip Man He's already mentioned in that article and his main claim to fame is carrying on Yip Man's legacy (WP:NOTINHERITED).204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is a grandmaster of a branch, not just any instructor. Article can easily be rewritten to give less attention to relationship with Yip Man and more attention to his own accomplishmentsAeontech (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ he has published several books on his philosophy about Wing Chun and martial arts (edit to add link to the book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Police-Kung-Fu-Man-Kam/dp/0804832714/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377094726&sr=8-1&keywords=lo+man+kam) and is well known at Wing Chun schools of different lineages as well for his focus on technique and relaxation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:981:6B86:1:48BE:D19:25D4:9893 (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — 2001:981:6B86:1:48BE:D19:25D4:9893 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Let's just look at WP:MANOTE under Martial Artists, Criteria #1 Subject of an independent article/documentary National Geographic did a documentary about him around 1992 Strongsauce (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ He is an important part of Wing Chun History and should be kept on Wikipedia out of respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.155.35 (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — 59.167.155.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~*Keep~~ Apart from the myriad articles about and interviews with Lo Man Kam on the internet and on worldwide television and print media, there have also been documentaries, such as the one on National Geographic. Lo Man Kam is also a repeated medalist, and internationally famous. Lo Man Kam has followers and admirers in Europe, Asia and North America. His significant place in Wing Chun history and in the legacy of a certain style is well-known and is well-documented.Redpath1983 (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Redpath1983 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It looks like the consensus will eventually be Keep but the article needs a little bit of effort to show his notability. The emphasis in the lead paragraph and most of the body is on his relationship to Yip Man - he is not notable because of that. A re-write of parts with references is in order. I would also remove some of the Yip Man only text as that is covered elsewhere and detracts from the focus.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Took a stab at it - inclusions of references still a problem.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ How on earth can you even be considering removing such an important historical figure in the art of wingchun??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.179.68 (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — 140.198.179.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I agree with the previous input, you should keep this article. GM Lo Man Kam been practising and teaching Wing Chun for manny years, and is a true Grandmaster in his own lineage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.106.24 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — 79.138.106.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The fact that he's a grandmaster is not sufficient to show notability--many 10th dans have had articles removed. However, in this case there seems to be plenty of coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG. The article needs to be rewritten and trimmed, but those aren't grounds for deletion. Papaursa (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick glance by me due to the puppet party. The sourcing is over my head. The footnoting is terrible. Appears to pass GNG in my cursory view. Carrite (talk) 03:27, 27 August 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.