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. Merging into Uechi-ryū is an option, to be worked out as an editorial decision. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pangai-noon[edit]

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

A non notable martial art without third person sources stating why its notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't see why this article exists. In the first line it says the art no longer exists and the final paragraph says it's questionable that it ever existed. It might be worth a mention in the Uechi Ryu article, but since it's already in that article I think this article adds nothing. Astudent0 (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or merge into Uechi-ryu~~ based on user Jmcw's improvements. Astudent0 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This style is described by Mark Bishop in Okinawan Karate, Second Edition isbn 978-0-8048-3205-2. The style is notable because it is the foundation of Uechi-ryū. The current article is POV by some break-away students of Uechi-ryū. The article needs citations, wiki editing and NPOV. jmcw (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have re-written the article with references. Please review it again. jmcw (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much improved, but since it's already in the uechi-ryu article does it really need its own article or should this content be merged into that article? Astudent0 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we save any paper? Do we get any points for the number of articles we delete? jmcw (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We weren't talking about deleting the info. I simply was asking where the best place to put it was. Thanks for the sarcasm. Astudent0 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the sarcasm. Why do you think this teacher should not have an article? jmcw (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I now think the current article is fine as a stand-alone. Astudent0 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! jmcw (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The old article deserved to be deleted, but this version is sourced and shows notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Uechi-ryū, unless expanded. Janggeom (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is reasonable, perhaps even preferable, but that can always be done later. The main thing is that the information should be kept. Papaursa (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:51, 25 January 2011 (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.