Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CHI-GI 氣-기

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 bone-shattering roundhouse delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

CHI-GI 氣-기

• Delete: Possibly a hoax? Definitely unsourced and I can't find any verification for this even existing. A martial arts form founded in New Zealand sounds a little fishy, no? If someone can prove me wrong, I'll gladly end this early. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Not entirely sure about this -- it doesn't exactly look like a hoax to me, just poorly written and unsourced. (Oh, and the characters and caps in the title would have to go.) I cwould deleat on WP:V, as I can't find any relevant Google hits. --Ogdred 02:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep and clean up. Zazaban 04:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain why?--TBCTaLk?!? 04:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete . A martial art with moves like "KI PUSH BLAST KICK" and "KI ROUNDHOUSE BLAST KICK"? With hardly any relevant Google hits? Sounds like a hoax to me...--TBCTaLk?!? 04:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Without going into whether this particular article is a hoax or not, I want to point out a big pitfall of counting ghits for a term in Chinese, namely that transcriptions and transliterations can vary -- I can think of at least three transliteration systems just for Mandarin, not to mention whatever one-off ways people come up with of contextlessly writing down one Chinese word in Roman letters.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment, note that the characters in the title are half Chinese and half Korean ("기" is a Korean character), which may be further proof that the article is a hoax.--TBCTaLk?!? 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now - I am going to go to NZ to track these guys down. Then, I'm going to kick all their asses. I will be able to fully document the martial art once I'm done doing this. Until then, no evidence that it even exists. My Alt Account 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that original research? 8-)–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the ass-kicking will get very substantial independent coverage. My Alt Account 22:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. After some further reading, it seems that the article is defiantly a hoax. Qi (or Ki as the Japanese call it) can't be used to actually alter the forces of nature, thus a "Ki push blast kick" or "Ki roundhouse blast kick" would be impossible. Using Ki in such a way only exists in martial arts movies, but not in real life. --TBCTaLk?!? 04:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds like the author was playing too much Mortal Kombat or something. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This sounds totally silly, there is no way it can be a real martial art. Cheifsguy 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A hoax. Allon Fambrizzi 04:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
  • Comment Hoaxes are not criterias for speedy deletion. See WP:CSD for more info.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unless verified. Looks like hoax to me.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 07:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although chi-gi appears to be a valid term for a kind of strike in martial arts, that's not what this purports to be about, and the title includes nonstandard capitalisation and non-Western characters, making it a case of the wrong content at the wrong title - hoax or not, it has to go. Guy 12:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Though it's true that chi is used in martial arts, note that "pushing" things with chi is entirely fictional. As I've said above, using chi like that only exists in martial arts movies, fighting video games, and the Star War films (where it's known as The Force).--TBCTaLk?!? 14:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax or severely non-notable. --Storkk 13:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This appears to be a (poorly written) fictional martial art system, apparently inspired by fighting games and bad anime. --Roninbk 13:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not really equipped to evaluate this, but if it is kept, it not only needs cleanup, but some attention to compliance with Naming conventions–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Recent research indicates that CHI-GI . . . developed from a need to defend themselves form an attacker, and that it was also used as a way to have fun in the small towns, as in sports events. Were this "recent research" available, it might make a case. But how much "research" does it take to confirm that this one claims to do what all other martial arts do? If kept, remove Sinograms from the title. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think it might take more research than you would think, just to hurdle WP:NOR --Roninbk 19:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless nom. is proved wrong. Arbusto 22:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The section on elbow techniques is a direction rip from the wikipedia's muay thai article, it has its own section called elbow techniques and it is word for word. This would devalue the CHI-GI article's value, meaning it should be deleted.Tiatzu 2:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Reading further, the entire thing was ripped off to varying degrees from Muay Thai My God, plagiarism within Wikipedia? Where does it stop? This user is using humor to illustrate a point, but is serious about the Delete --Roninbk 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tiatzu and Roninbk. Also, no reference has ever been made to this "chi gi" on usenet.[1] Shawnc 15:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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.