Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KunLun fight

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KunLun fight

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

Notability not established. Claims aside (not supported by references) this is not a notable kickboxing organization. The article was PROD'd and also speedy deleted a number of times. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable fighter that does not pass the notability guidelines. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source is from the organization. My search found the usual routine fight announcements and results, but not the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see passing mentions in news media but no solid coverage that is about it as a subject in itself. Does Chinese language Wikipedia have an article on it? If it does then it isn't linked If nobody in its native country cares enough to write about it then I doubt it is notable globally. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "Kunlun Fight（China）" has recently been created with the same content by the same author. I have put it up for speedy deletion as a duplicate. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that the number of creations I mentioned above have all been under variations of the name. Definitely persistent.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2015 (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.