Talk:Ryūkyū Kempo

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ryūkyū Kempo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Split Dillman into new article

I agree with JJL 23 January 2007 that the Information about Dillman should be in an article about Dillman, not in an article about Ryukyu Kenpo. jmcw (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me but i did notice that WOMA.TV seems to be associated with or be promoting him, so is not a great source and has been added to refernce lots of bits --Nate ^t/_c 12:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] jmcw (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split done - George Dillman. Article now needs tidying. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion 2010

I think there might be enough reliable material for one article covering Seiyu Oyata, George Dillman, Ryū-te and Ryukyu Kempo. George Dillman is probably easiest to establish notability because of his public failures of effective technique. Thoughts? jmcw (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging all these into one article looks like a reasonable idea, although I'm not sure that even when they're combined they have good independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Dillman is surely notable. I'd like to see this preserved as a separate page but finding enough English-language sources for it separate from him may be hard. JJL (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in order to get a George Dillman a seperate article we need additional sources there is only source which discusses him the New York Times article. Black belt magazine has released archives of many of their back issues see here [2] it may help in getting reliable information. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear consensus for a merge after over a year, so I am removing the tag. A new discussion based on the current state of the articles may be started if a merge still appears appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]