Deletion of Shaolin-Do

Comment: From the number of schools the article claims, one would expect there to be news coverage. But the only sources cited do not appear to satisfy 's requirement that they be intellectually independent of the subject. The various claims to it being a notable ancient martial arts system appear to lack independent and reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: While the nom is a poorly-executed argument for deletion, there are still legit reasons to delete. All but one of the ghits mentioning this Mcdojo chain are from the school branches or completely unreliable sources. The hits from the newsbank are almost exclusively for press releases and events listings. Besides, none of them can be properly cited as  because the actual content is unavailable. The one news mention to be found, from a broadcast TV station is patently trivial. It's a YouTube clip of a story on a foiled attack in a parking garage that uses a instructor as an anecdote about self-defence. It doesn't even mention the chain's name explicitly. The book is authored ''by the system's founder'', which hardly makes it a third party source. Just because this group has a load of schools doesn't mean they meet . No significant coverage in reliable and independent sources exists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)