- Bruce Copley (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
incorrect deletion process, biased deletion: arguments not objectively considered from everyone and instead, by his own admission votes counted by deleting admin User :Stifle; no consensus reached before deletion process activated; discussion was still very active; no chance offered to respond to criticisms by last user to post, no reasons for deletion offered. ChrisStefan (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, if the admin had read the page he would have seen that there was a request for mediation active which had not yet been responded to. ChrisStefan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse as proper close. First off, the claim that there were "no reasons for deletion offered" is plainly false. The reason given by the nom, and by every subsequent commenter !voting delete", was that the subject fails basic notability requirements. Throughout the course of the unduly long AFD, you completely failed to rebut this. The closer was right to give less weight to the !votes by contributors with no other edit history, but regardless AFD is not a headcount, and those comments offered nothing but unfounded opinion without regard to current Wikipedia guidelines and standards, so their arguments would count less in any event. If you can show that Copley has been the subject of significant coverage by significant reliable sources (as defined in WP:RS), please do so, by providing citations and/or links here. Show us articles or books about Copley. Please don't flood this discussion, as you did the AFD, with multiple paragraphs that don't accomplish that single task, as that isn't going to sway anyone.
The mediation request is completely irrelevant, as this is the proper forum for challenging an AFD result, there is nothing compulsory about mediation that could have stopped that AFD or this DRV, and not liking the way an AFD is going is not even remotely reasonable grounds for requesting mediation. postdlf (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I didn't comment at the AfD, but I know my usual response to an article which has 5 paragraphs, each trying to show why the person is mildly important in a completely different activity, especially when it is written in the laudatory terms of the article presently in the cache. Had I seen it, I might have considered speedy deletion as entirely promotional, & the susbequent discussion by the subject reinforces this.
- If you read the arguments in the AFD you would have seen that all the criticisms regarding notability were fully addressed and supported via arguments and sources but that this was never acknowledged by those proposing deletion - not by you either - this was the reason for requesting objective mediation.
- If you read the request for mediation you would see that the grounds offered had absolutely nothing to do with your unfounded accusation of me 'not liking' it.
- Would like to offer as proof, links from the article itself. Please note that this has to be studied in conjunction with the claims in the article before you can decide on notability. Where can I find these since the article has now been deleted? All I can seemingly access is a record of the AFD discussion.
ChrisStefan (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are just a few sources I have right now, to get the ball rolling:
- http://www.fullcirclemag.co.za/media/articles/misc/allfiredup.jpg
- http://s2a3.up.ac.za/awards_winners.php British Association Medal Winners and Awards
- http://www.rhodesalumni.com/accolades.html Rhodes University Alumni Accolades
- The Australian Didgeridoo, Free Spirit, Series 8, Episode 5, SABC 3 national broadcast, March 2006, Produced by Shoot the Breeze Productions (Electronic Listing Nr: OP30-86587)
- http://evolution.skf.com/zino.aspx?articleid=14964 SKF Sweden Evolution Business and Technology Magazine article about Dr Copley's work
- http://www.fevacasters.sony.com/video/XzgyBPyjPRI The Rainbow Vuvuzela and Dr Copley on the Official SONY World Cup Soccer Site
- Rainbow Rhythm Series 2010 - Showcasing the Rainbow Vuvuzela, South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC 2)
- http://leadership365.wordpress.com/ Dr Edwin Hawthorne from Elevating Minds [ww.elevatingminds.com] on Dr Bruce Copley and Holistic Leadership
- http://www.epafrica.com/index.php/african-speakers-bureau/speakers/83-bruce-copley African Speakers Bureau Listing
- http://www.amybiehl.co.za/archives/1859 Dr Copley and the Amy Biehl Foundation
- http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&¬e_id=10150090771253813 Holistic Intelligence - breeding wisdom, not knowledge
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKD-tef2wGA Two Day Event with Dr Peter Block and Symphonia Consulting
- http://www.lesleyrochat.com/news-and-blog/2010/5/10/afrioceans-warriors-celebration-huge-success.html AfriOceans-Warriors: Celebration HUGE success!
- Cooke, J. (1983). International Who's Who in Tennis. World Championship Tennis, Inc. p. 154. ISBN 9995019523.
- http://www.itftennis.com/coaching/publications/nonitfpubs/science/medicine.asp International Tennis Federation articles on medicine and conditioning
- http://www.didgeridoobreath.com/kb_results.asp?ID=16
- "Lecture Post for Copley", Pretoria News, South Africa, Jan 1972
- http://www.sunvalleyprimary.co.za/site/gallery/culture-bruce-copley-music-man-39
- http://www.radiohelderberg.co.za/programmes/in-the-spotlight/item/64-dr-bruce-copley-on-936-fm
- http://www.ileadspeakers.com/inspirational-speaker-dr-bruce-copley-pretoria.html
- http://www.cpbd.co.za/CvBruce.html
- http://www.aahalearning.com/reading/room7/articles/Interview_Bruce/#top An interview with Bruce Copley by Ed Drury, reprinted from The Didgeridoo & Co Magazine, Jan/March 2003
... and much more about him if you care to Google his name. Please motivate how anybody can believe this man is not 'noted' by numerous independent and reliable, verifiable sources. ChrisStefan (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse own deletion as reflective of the consensus — ChrisStefan and various pop-up users were the only ones supporting keeping the page, while a variety of established users supported deletion. The discussion was held open for ten days, almost 50% above the norm, and it was only "still active" to the extent that ChrisStefan and a smattering of WP:SPAs were bludgeoning it to death. A mediation being opened is not a bar to a deletion discussion being closed. I echo Postdlf's request to ChrisStefan not to flood this discussion similarly. Quality is better than quantity — please provide links to mainstream media, not blogs, adverts, Facebook pages, and YouTube videos. See WP:RS and WP:STICK. Stifle (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not bludgeoning to death, instead simply responding to criticisms as they arose, if you care to read the discussion thoroughly. A mediation being opened should at least have given you cause for consideration and pause but sure, your defense is correct, no-one can take you to court. Your restriction on the type of source which should be allowed is typical of the kind of dogma I had to address during the AFD already, during which I pointed out that Wikipedia acknowledges that YouTube videos can be reliable sources under certain conditions. Sources like blogs and Facebook notes can be quality sources when written by reliable persons or instances, and our video sources meet all the criteria for reliability. Shouldn't each source be considered on its own merit and in conjunction with the article, and not just indiscrimnately boxed into pre-accepted categories of non-acceptability? It is strange that you as the deleting admin did not notice these arguments re those type of sources in the AFD yourself. All I ask is that somebody unbiased read the article sentence by sentence, then actually look at the source(s) for that particular statement, and in this fashion arrive at his own conclusions at the end. ChrisStefan 17:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A "holistic edutainer". Good Lord, whatever next? Postdlf has already said everything I would say about this.—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - notably and refreshingly different! Difficult to top! ChrisStefan (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If he said everything you would say, why do you ignore the list of references I provided in reponse to his (your) request? ChrisStefan (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because most of them clearly fail Wikipedia's rules, I couldn't make head nor tail of the others I checked. I can't tell for certain in what publication the first article appeared, although on the face of it, it seems to be "Full Circle Magazine". But who publishes it, and with what degree of editorial supervision and fact-checking? Does it have an ISSN or other evidence of being a non-amateur publication? Is the image shown an article or an advertorial? There's no information. The second source doesn't contain any in-depth discussion of the subject at all. At that point I decided I was wasting my limited volunteering time and stopped checking sources. I simply skipped down to the arguments, noted that Postdlf had adequately covered how I felt, and chose to support his view.
I think the main problem you have here is the sheer volume of text you have written about this subject. Deletion review regulars have long experience of editors who insist on replying to every single remark. Usually, when over 50% of the text in a discussion has been written by one editor and everyone else disagrees with him, that lone editor is attempting to challenge a consensus by sheer persistence—i.e. to get his way by exhausting the opposition rather than out-arguing them. This impression is exacerbated by the fact that you started your nomination by accusing the AfD closer of bias. Very, very few nominations that say this succeed. You can say that Stifle was mistaken, or that he missed something important, but calling a closer "biased" is normally a fast ticket to an "endorse" outcome. My advice to you is to withdraw this request for the moment, because the discussion is going against you very quickly and resoundingly. If you don't wish to accept the outcome then your best bet is to prepare a brief draft article in your userspace, based only on the most impeccably checkable, reliable, independent, professional sources that you can find, and then after a short cooling off period, bring it back to DRV with a brief and respectful nomination statement.—S Marshall T/C 20:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Only one person, and their socks wanted retention. While I discourage writing with a conflict of interest, ChrisStefan, if you really want an article on this topic, start fresh from a user subpage, create a short stub, that's not promotional, and include just a few, solid independent reliable substantial sources. You have to show there's something to build on. Quantity can't make up for lack of quality. Just one solid substantial independent source, would have done you more good, than the the long list of worthless links provided. --Rob (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rob: If you look at the top of the AFD discussion, you will see that I addressed the question from you at the time, as to which sources are our top sources. I supplied you with a short list - however you failed to respond to this. ChrisStefan (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How weighty are endorse supports from people who took part in the AFD, especially if they are the nominator or the deleting admin? It can be shown that the deleting admin did not even read the discussion properly and was most probably not even aware of the pending mediation request, and the user Rob had a lot to answer for during the discussion in terms of showing bias and bad-faith, as pointed out numerous times. ChrisStefan (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another source: Book titled, "Rehumanised Productivity Improvement – Revised performance management, human resources development, work environment improvement". – Published by Knowledge Resources, 1999. Author: Dr Deon Huyshamen (http://www.cpbd.co.za/CvDoc.html) Entire section written about Dr Copley on pages 64-66. ChrisStefan (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, people have a problem doing the legwork. Lack of attention span?? Who knows. Probably. Critics versus creators, maybe. Anyway, I have supplied the references requested to prove notability. All that is needed is for someone (the requestor....??) to have the guts to agree instead of looking desperately for help at what other people are saying. Poor little me, arriving with stars in my eyes, wanting to contribute... rude awakening! Wiki-dogma excludes possibility for independent thought... or does it...? Wiki-Warrior has spoken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStefan (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Express your argument in 100 words or less. If notability is clear you'll be able to. Note that I clicked on a few of your links, and frankly they're laughable. Egg Centric (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Attempt 1: "This article complies with all Wikipedia requirements, as demonstrated ad nauseam during the AFD". 14 words.
- Attempt 2: "The only way to verify this first-hand is to actually read the damn thing and check the sources yourself so get off your lazy bum and get on with it." 31 words
ChrisStefan (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones exactly were laughable, Mr Joker? How many? ChrisStefan (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not intend to engage you any further. Good luck! Egg Centric (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! This same position was taken by the other advocates who staunchly endorsed deletion during the AFD, when asked for ptoof of their statements. Yet their 'vote' is what ultimately counted. ChrisStefan (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Request speedy/snow close from an uninvolved admin; nominator is name-calling and casting aspersions against those who disagree with him and needs to drop the stick. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While awaiting this, here is an analysis of the presented sources.
- Scan of a magazine page. No idea how notable the magazine is, whether it has a circulation of 100 or 1 million, or even whether the material was editorial, advertorial, or something else again.
- He won a silver medal. No indication what sort of an award it is or what it's for.
- Probably self-written; very promotional tone.
- Offline, unable to check.
- An interview, some contribution towards notability, but the four topics available on the website are "industries, products, services, and solutions", so it is probably leaning towards advertorial.
- Youtube video, fails WP:RS.
- Offline, unable to check.
- Blog, fails RS
- Evidence that he will accept payment to be a public speaker. So will I. I haven't been approached yet.
- Charity website, not media coverage; again if I organized a charity day I would get something similar but it wouldn't make me notable.
- Facebook page, fails RS
- Youtube video, fails RS
- Blog, fails RS
- Offline, unable to check
- He's been cited by someone. So have I.
- He plays the didgeridoo. Wonderful, but so do buskers in Dublin.
- Offline, unable to check
- Photo gallery, does not show anything as regards notability
- He was on a radio show. I did that once too, talking about WP in fact!
- See 9
- Resumé
- Interview about didgeridoo-playing; see #16. Marginal notability perhaps.
- So really, analysing all the sources, I do not see the non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources that we normally expect of articles. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris, what you need to understand is that when the notability of an article is challenged, the burden of proving this claim does not fall upon those who challenge it. Instead, the burden of disproving this claim falls upon those who assert notability. You were asked in the AfD to address an issue. You did not (to the satisfaction of those who commented). Disliking this result is hardly a valid reason to overturn the AfD. Here, we have little choice but to endorse. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Stifle: You are not 'uninvolved', you are the closing admin I am accusing of doing a shoddy job
- Re name-calling: Not really, it was an attempt at bringing a little humour into this dismal proceedings.
- Re criticisms of links: Already thoroughly addressed during AFD. Also I mentioned repeatedly above that to understand the sources properly you need to look at the article also. Yes he's been 'cited by someone; - do you know why? For instance the British Association Medal is one of the highest research awards that can be awarded to a research scientist in South Africa (which also warrants the so-called promotional adjective 'prestigious'.) The list of research articles independently collected by the ITF is proof on an amazing and sustained contribution in the field of sports science that is unmatched since 1970 to the present day. YouTube videos do not automatically 'fail' RS. As pointed out many times before: From [WP:VIDEOSHARE]: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources. However, such links must abide by various policies and guidelines...Copyright is of particular concern. Reliability of the uploader and video must always be established if the link is used as a source. We have shown that the videos we use are reliable and have no copyright issues and are undeniably reliable. Facebook notes and blogs can be acceptable if reliability is beyond question - links must be judged on own merit. Re Didge: he doesn't jut busk, he pushes the didge beyond normal boundaries, as is plain to see from the sources. Yes he was on a radio show and we have proof of him working with notable charities and doing notable work with them but you simply denigrate this as if it is nothing, etc. etc. All these sources, some on their own and all together contribute to proof of notability in diverse and different fields and it is extremely strange that people cannot admit this. ChrisStefan (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re burden of proof: During AFD I have accepted the 'burden of proof 'for every single criticism, but almost never did the critics accep burden of proof for their own statements - see for example Egg Centric above. I may dislike the result but I never said that is the reason for reversal and for that statement the 'burden of proof' lies with 'you'. I have listed my reasons for seeking reversal clearly already. ChrisStefan (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not claiming to be an uninvolved admin, he is asking for it "from an uninvolved admin", i.e. for an uninvolved admin to perform the request. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response != proof. You gave responses which were not suitable, so did not prove anything. lifebaka++ 16:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse & snow close. Closure was a correct reading of the policy-based consensus at AfD. And while DRV is not AfD round 2, none of the sources provided neither in the list above nor in the article represent any substantial coverage in reliable sources with an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ChrisStefan (talk) is further formally warned that any further contribution that fails to WP:AGF or can be construed, even by the flimsiest reading, as a personal attack on others, he will be blocked for 7 days. Enough is enough. MLauba (Talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree. The sources are clearly reliable enough, there clearly is substantial independent coverage in them especially taken as a whole, and there is no real reason to doubt them or to doubt the fact that this person is a noted personage. How does this relate to good-faith on your part, I wonder? Your insistence on ridiculously high standards for every single source would invalidate almost every article in Wikipedia, and I suspect that you use it for that purpose here instead of being prepared to evaluate the article on its own merits. If true, could this be bad-faith on your part? (I guess you would counter that it's bad-faith on my part for pointing this out.) People can say "your sources are laughable" without backing it up or even identifying those sources, but when I call him a 'Joker' for saying this, then I am warned about good-faith and bans? Don't worry about the 7 days ban you can make it 777 days if you want, because why in the world would I want to be associated any longer with such a farce? ChrisStefan (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points. First, see WP:OTHERSTUFF for why arguing using how things are done elsewhere is easily fallacious. Second, no amount of incivility on the parts of others excuses incivility on your part. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I was not present at the AfD, but I know what I usually say to an article consisting of 5 paragraphs, each devoted to a totally different activity is which the notability is, at best, borderline. In the present state of the article, I would probably have said something stronger, such as suggesting speedy deletion under criterion G11 for being entirely promotional and not being capable of improvement by normal rewriting. The discussion at the AfD and now here certainly confirms that impression. But there is the BA Medal [1] : I see we have very few articles on the Gold medal winners, and I consider that an error due to cultural bias--the specification is "exceptional contribution to the advancement of science, on a broad front or in a specialized field, by an eminent South African scientist." They should be written promptly--I meets the WP:PROF requirement. But the Silver medal, which is the award in this case, is "a person under the age of 40 who is actively engaged in research and has, by way of international participation and publications, shown outstanding capability and achievement." I do not think that confers notability -- I see the key phrase "outstanding capability" which often means Not Yet Notable. It's possible that an article directed to the scientific achievements might meet the standard, but it would need to be written by someone else--and watched carefully. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and block ChrisStefan. Between the meatpuppetry at the AFD and the name-calling and generally behaving like a petulant child here, it's extremely clear that this is not a user who is here in good faith to help us build an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|