Deletion of Groin attack (3rd nomination)

Comment: Judging from the https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Groin+attack%22 book references one can find, most of them looking germane, it seems a legitimate topic in the context of martial arts. I also agree with the first part of Carrite comment (that is, every artice on WP is some kind of synthesis), but not with the second (circular  non-argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UNENCYC)

Comment: but not opposed to a '''redirect''' and a bit of a '''merge''' to somewhere suitable. But there are ost wanted articles|more important things to do
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mediation (WP:M)

Comment: The claim that reliable sources have nothing to say about this topic is |testicular.  See, for example, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HtsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA83 this, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IM4dkiYMflMC&pg=PA21 that, and http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540253.2011.602330 more
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BOLLOCKS)

Comment: as , not properly referenced, not encyclopedic.  WP is not a |junkyard
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:JUNK)