Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 11

11 March 2009

Larry Schultz and It's Yoga

Larry Schultz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It's Yoga (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First I will apologize if I am a newbie. If I am not following protocol, please advise.

I feel these items were deleted without a current consensus at the time of deletion. Both of these articles were questioned on notability. Larry Schultz AfD was initially closed for lack of consensus by another editor, and then subsequently deleted. It's Yoga delete comments all came in long before i added proper citations.

After initial delete comments, I added more citations and it appears those citations at least exceed many of the other wikipedia pages. Schultz's article I think had 4 or more citations. These citations included San Francisco Chronicle and Yoga Journal. Yoga Journal is the primary yoga trade magazine and cites Schultz as the creator of Power Yoga, which right now is just forwarded to Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga. Personally I dont agree with that, but that is a whole separate issue. All of these citations were eventually added to the articles, but after a few people had already added delete comments.

In summary, this yoga guru and his school are very notable in the yoga world and outside. Schultz is quoted as the yoga teacher to celebrities like Grateful Dead and Christy Turlington, as the founder of power yoga, and head of a worldwide franchised yoga network. (All of this was hopefully cited properly at the time of deletion, but not at the time the initial delete comments came in.)

Comments?

PS- I object to the first comment by an admin that incorrectly listed me as an Single purpose account. Sorry I didnt read about SPA's before I created a username with yoga in it before i went on to create a page about one of my yoga teachers. I believe this sort of comment also biased the discussion. Jtyoga (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dana L. French

Dana L. French (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I got into an editing war with User:Tedickey#Dana_L._French over his lack of reviewing additions and updates to the article before reverting to a previous version. Rather than actually reviewing the article an recognizing the improvments, sources, and references that were added, he simply reverted to a previous version and refused to review the modifications. Part of his argument is that I did not supply reliable sources. If he had actually reviewed the sources he would have seen they included the International Standards Organization (as in ISO9000) and IBM. I am not sure you can get any more reliable than these sources.

I am requesting the article be restored and that Tedickey be blocked from editing this page again. After reviewing his talk page, he seems to have a large number of problems where he has not actually reviewed the articles he edits.

Additionally, even if he did not like the updated article, it was far better than the previous version. Why would he revert to previous version? Why would he not comment on the updated article instead? It makes not sense, but then neither do any of his arguments. Dfrench (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The article was previously deleted at articles for deletion all be it some time ago, so it seems to have been deleted as a recreation of deleted material, that is it hasn't substantially addressed the reason for original deletion. Looking at the cached version the "sourceing" to IBM et al doesn't seem to be sourcing at all, it seems to be pointing to articles written by D French [1][2], The "ISO" page [3] which is just someones links to ISO standards and doesn't mention D French at all. Or another IBM page where [4] where D French is listed as a contact. I didn't see one which was about D French, so I guess there isn't that much interest to write about the person which would be the normal standard for biographical articles. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment: The page was deleted as having "same material deleted already per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana French" by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim. The original AfD closed in early 2006. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 07:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment 2: to the nom, I noticed a discussion on the talk page about whether articles written by the subject were WP:RS. This is generally not the case as it conflicts with the requirement that these should be "third party". Please have a look at WP:OR and WP:COI. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 07:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not strictly true. Sources need to be third party if they're used to establish notability, but selfpublished sources can be used for non-contentious material as long as the article doesn't rely on such sources entirely. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, the context of RS in AfD and DRV is mostly notability so that was the perspective I was adressing this from. I agree that it would be a bit weird, for example, to refuse self-published text used to source a statement about an opinion. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 09:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Restore as substantially different from what was previously deleted. We are not in a position to prohibit a user from editing the page, however; you may wish to look to WP:3O or WP:DR for that issue. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Restore per Stifles comments on content. If the content is substantially different from the deleted content then G4 (implicitly claimed) doesn't apply. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 09:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)