"

 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheongye Kwan 

Your post at the above AFD on a new martial art bothers me. This was the version at the time, that you based your post on. You posted:

 ""I just read the article, and to be quite honest, feel that it does satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines... it is reliably sourced... Since I believe the notability of the article is satisfied... It now has 11 independent sources. And to refute the argument posed by Wayne, it is determined by the Phillip Rhee source that the martial arts is not localised"".

Please consider the concerns this post raises. Simple matters like references, notability and noobie basics of AFDs should be routine for any moderately experienced user, and bread-and-butter for any admin. In fact a cursory check shows that almost everything you stated was.. I don't have a word for it. ""Unreal"" is close.

The ""eleven independent sources"" that you stated established notability and non-localization at the time, were:
 Three references from 2004 [coates, robinson, shaw], certainly before the topic even existed (!) and all related to a passing piece of news about its founder being on the team of a completely different sport in any event (!)
 Two references from 1st half 2005 [davies, white], almost certainly identical and identically irrelevant to the topic's notability.
 The promoter's personal page on his local town website, almost certainly self-published [official village website].
 A 2008 casual interview in a non-notable and possibly non-reliable university magazine (apparently) of the promoter's travels to see experts in a different sport, with tangential tiny (< 1 sentence) mention that he'd discussed his new sport with them too. [ the Lau Philip ""LA"" interview].
 3 entries marked ""Reference and support of , Written Reference"" [chris, cook, rhee], obviously a request by the founder to a friend/colleague write a letter of support, that was never published anyway and isn't cited so you can't have read it (not that it was even possibly valid evidence).
 A short writeup of a ""local information"" kind, on the award of the first 4 black belts by the school, in its local paper.

In brief of the 11:
 5 were before the sport existed and were not even remotely to do with the topic itself much less ""sourced"" material on it or ""substantial"" coverage (they had precisely zero coverage); 
 3 were claims of personal ""I think  is a great guy"" letters of support, evidently solicited and/or written on request, with zero evidence of verifiable existence, and certainly in no way reliably sourced or independent; 
 1 was self-written
 1 was the briefest of non-mentions in a non-reliable source (pretty much ""I discussed the topic with them"" in a college magazine interview)
 1 is local press coverage of his courses that's not even ""news for a day""  or evidence of anything beyond ""a course by this name is taught twice weekly in our local village hall"".

Your assessment of these, at AFD, was:
 It is reliably sourced
{| style=""border:#c0c0c0 solid 1px"" width=""90%""
| 
 There is barely one reliable source in all of those 11 that the sport even exists in the first place (!) - a local newspaper mention that it meets in a village hall on tuesdays and fridays and just awarded its first 4 black belts. Probably via self-promotional input. 
 There is zero reliable sourcing for any of the rest.
|}
 That the cited pages are evidence of notability
{| style=""border:#c0c0c0 solid 1px"" width=""90%""
| 
 They don't mention it, or even date from a time the topic existed, nor are online versions provided! How on earth could they ""reliably evidence"" it?
|}
 That the ""11 sources"" are ""independent""
{| style=""border:#c0c0c0 solid 1px"" width=""90%""
| 
 3 are claims that ""please support me"" letters exist; they are even stated to be ""personal references""; unpublished and uncited
 1 is his own clearly self-written web page on a local village web host
|}
 That the cites show it is ""non-localized""
{| style=""border:#c0c0c0 solid 1px"" width=""90%""
| 
 The page doesn't list a link so you can't have checked the cite, yet you say the citation ""proves"" it. 
 The reference openly stated ""Cambridge University and Bristol Taekwando"" (!) a big indication of its actual source
 When a link was provided on request  it turns out it'