Deletion of Glossary of Wing Chun terms

Comment: Really? Nothing is |verifiable? Even if we disregard the notability of Wing Chun, there are plenty of academic sources that would corroborate the terms listed in this glossary. To illustrate the point, here are the first two terms in this glossary in two separate academic sources: https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=H7s0CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA192&dq=%22Wing+Chun%22+terms&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Siu%20Nim%20Tau&f=false Siu Nim Tau (SUNY Press), https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=Ux0NCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Wing+Chun%22+terms+glossary&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Chum%20Kiu&f=false Chum Kiu (Tuttle Publishing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Glossaries are valid content on Wikipedia per , "''Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field''".  Adding sources seems easy by reference to works such as ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bCdyAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT258 Martial Arts of Korea, China & Japan'', which verifies the first entry.  Our |editing policy is to improve such content rather than deleting it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:IMPERFECT)