Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:25, 17 June 2012

17 June 2012

Time in Illinois

Time in Illinois (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Clearly erroneous NAC close where the closer acknowledged they messed up the close This should be reclosed as merge or delete Spartaz 04:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment If this was an inappropriate closure for non-admin, than what are we doing there? According to WP:NACD: "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator". Armbrust, B.Ed. _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• That's the request. Spartaz doesn't have admin rights at the moment. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• indeed I am not an admin and we need an admin to reclose this. Spartaz 09:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Why should Time in Illinois be treated any differently from, say, Time in Alabama? What we ought to be doing is considering all of the articles called "Time in (State)". Spartaz is clearly right to say that this needs to be overturned, but we should be going further than that. Relist and co-nominate all the other such articles so that all are treated in a consistent way.—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• ahah G5 time perhaps?? Spartaz 13:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Politics in the British Isles

Politics in the British Isles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a very lengthy and contentious debate, but the closer's rationale is notable for its lack of any explanation of why zie weighed the debate as "keep". The closer dismisses one point raised, but shows no evidence of having considered the most significant argument: that this article is a POV fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations. A succinct explanation of this was posted in the XfD, and the closer rejected my request to explain why this evidence was not reflected in his closure.
POV forking is something which Misplaced Pages strives hard to avoid, and it is perverse that an XfD should be closed as "keep" in the face of clear evidence of POV forking which was supported by several contributors to the discussion. The result should have been "merge" or "delete".
The closer says that he "made every effort not to allow my nationality to sway my judgement", but his userpage includes a "proud to be British" userbox. The closer would have been better advised to leave the closure to someone from an uninvolved nation, rather than making an unexplained closure which reflects the position taken in the debate by British editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Note that this debate was previously closed early as "delete", and that closure was discussed at DRV May 30, as a result of which the AFD was relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse keep closure The whole point of the DRV is that BrownHairedGirl disagrees with a closure that isn't ending in delete. It has little to nothing to do with the actual arguments presented in the AfD itself. The arguments in the AfD were essentially at a standstill, with each side saying British Isles meant one thing and the other side saying it meant another thing. And there was no way to properly rectify the arguments. But, more people voting in the AfD seemed to feel that the article should be kept and that the one side's argument was stronger. This seems pretty obvious and fully supports Spinningspark's closure. I already know that this DRV is just going to become AfD part 2. It's too contentious a subject to not become as such. Silverseren 01:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Like the closer, you are ignoring the evidence presented that the article is a POV fork. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  And you are ignoring the fact that I and others already argued against it being a fork in the AfD itself, which the closer would have taken into account. Furthermore, calling it a POV fork is insinuating that the creator made the article in a manner violating NPOV. Do you have anything to actually back this up or are you going to call out the term British Isles, which has already been refuted as an argument? Silverseren 02:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  And how do you rectify the POV fork accusation with the fact that the content of the article in question was copied wholesale over to the Ireland-UK relations article in an attempt to further the deletion of this article? If the content is a POV fork, then isn't it always a POV fork, including the information copied over to the other article? Silverseren 02:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  You appear not to understand what a POV fork is. The material was copied over because it covered the same topic. The problem with a POV fork is that different POVs should be covered in the same article, so the appropriate editorial solution is to merge the POV fork back into the main article and develop the material there. Once the two are merged, the fork ceases to exist.

  The question of whether the creating editor intended to create a POV fork is a user conduct issue, but the issue here is content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  The issue is that whether the relations article is the "same topic" is exactly the nature of the disagreement in the AfD. It was exactly that that was being argued and the AfD consensus clearly shows that Politics in the British Isles is not the same topic as Ireland-UK relations. You may disagree with this consensus, sure, but disagreeing with the consensus opinion is no reason to start a DRV. Silverseren 02:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Rather than baldly asserting "consensus shows", please can you link to the policy-based arguments which use referenced reliable sources to refute the evidence presented by RA in the XfD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  This really is AfD part 2 for you, isn't it? Arguing the consistencies on whether the Crown Dependencies are or are not a de facto part of the UK or if they are only so de jure or any of the other arguments that were made in the AfD aren't going to get us anywhere. We'd just go in circles again of yes they are and no they aren't. For example, here's your sources, but i'm quite sure there's sources that will say the opposite. That's not what we're here for though, to rehash these arguments. Silverseren 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  No, this isn't AFD part 2. This is about the failure of the closer to weigh the arguments made in the CFD, and the closer's failure to note the evidence that relations between Ireland and the UK includes relations between Ireland and the dependencies of the UK.

  The link you provide actually reinforces the point that the UK has responsibility for the International relations of the Crown Dependencies, and the Crown Dependencies act internationally only under the delegated authority of the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not even going to bother at this point. Everyone can see that you made this DRV because you disagree with the outcome of the AfD, but not because the consensus is actually wrong. Silverseren 03:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  I mean, seriously? This series of edits? You couldn't make it more obvious if you tried...though I guess you are trying, in a sense. Silverseren 03:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Umm, what's your point? The consensus at AFD was that it was a POV fork, and I have been editing the article to note some of the details of the POV and other problems in it, as set out on the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  That's your opinion, not consensus. The uninvolved admin did not agree, and the article was proposed to be kept.--KarlB (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Do note that BrownHairedGirl is now going around making edits like this. That alone is clearly showing that this is a personal opinion issue on the topic for the nominator and not an inappropriate close for the AfD at all. Silverseren 02:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Please try to clam down. The edit summary of that edit is "remove "main article" link to an article which is not about political movements". If you examine the edit, you will see that is what the edit did. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  One would think politics of the region would include the political movements interconnecting parts of the region. Are you disagreeing with this? Silverseren 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Whatever "one would think", one should check rather than assuming. The reality is that the article which purports to be about the "politics of the region" is actually a POV fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations, rather than about political movements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete - First off, we have an entire page Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log dedicated to using the term "British Isles" in Misplaced Pages. The closer noted, "It is hard to hold it against KarlB for using this term when there is no widely recognised neutral alternative." There is no widely recognized neutral alternative because, as the deletes pointed out, this article is a POV fork of Ireland-United Kingdom relations and the relevant literature in this area predominately utilizes Ireland-United Kingdom relations rather than Politics in the British Isles. Also, the closer noted that "I have seen no evidence that the article was written with this POV." The delete argument related to being a POV fork relative to the Ireland-United Kingdom relations article, not POV relative to itself. The deletes also pointed out that the article is a synthesis of disparate topics created to construct within Misplaced Pages the notion of a common polity across the so-called British Isles. If you only look for source material referencing Politics in the British Isles rather than Ireland-United Kingdom relations, you will get only viewpoints brought out by the disputed British Isles term and be able to avoid viewpoints in the relevant Ireland-United Kingdom relations literature. The delete arguments were collective and not overcome by the keep arguments. Overturn to delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete. The closer did not address the issues raised in the deletion nomination and instead provided a paragraph of barely intelligible rambling. Note that I am not impartial. Although I missed the debate, I feel the article is an unnecessary redundant content fork of other articles and that the concept of "Politics in the British Isles" (not the content of the article) is original research (WP:SYNTH). Neither of these points, which were expounded by others in the debate, was addressed in the closing. —  AjaxSmack  05:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Neither you, nor Uzma above, have addressed the consensus as a whole for the discussion, just stated your opinion on the article. At most, the discussion would go toward no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete in the discussion. Silverseren 05:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The close was not made on the basis of no consensus. The close doesn't seem to have any coherent basis at all. —  AjaxSmack  06:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • But you still aren't addressing the AfD. Do you really think the consensus of everyone in the AfD is to Delete? Silverseren 06:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
        • "Consensus...does not mean unanimity... an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's norms." —  AjaxSmack  06:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Okay, and? The main arguments boiled down to what is actually covered by the Ireland-UK relations article. And both arguments were really just as good as each other, it's pretty much an intractable disagreement. That would make it no consensus. With the higher amount of people deciding that Keep was the way to go over the opposing arguments, that would make it no consensus leaning toward keep. Nothing in there would be a delete. Silverseren 06:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete Can't fathom the reasoning behind the closure, this article is clearly a content fork and as such should have been deleted. Mo ainm~Talk 09:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment from closer. In my defence, I would point out that I spent nearly 24 hours examining the arguments. I trailed the idea that the close would be brief well in advance of actually closing specifically to test for objections. I note that BHG was very active during that period, making in excess of 250 edits, but chose not to challenge that principle until after the discussion went against her. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that I considered all major threads of the arguments, including the argument that this article is a POV fork. I found no unarguable policy violation here, and without that, given the split in opinions in the debate, it was never going to be closed delete. The decision was between keep and no consensus. While that was a tough call, there is no difference for any practical purpose between "no consensus" and "keep without prejudice" to major reworking. SpinningSpark 10:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The closer's comments about me are bizarre. He appears to be suggesting that it is somehow my fault that he provided an unexplained closure, or at least that I should have stopped him from botching a job he had appointed himself to. That is weird logic :(
    I had not commented in the discussion since 29 May (9 days before it was relisted, 17 days before it was closed), and in the last few days I was busy recategorising unrelated material rather than watching an AFD which had already been open for 3 weeks. I had not seen that the closer gave 8 hours notice of his intention to be brief, and was not aware of any intention to close the XfD until after it had been done. In any case the giving of notice does not justify the lack of a rationale for the closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • It is bizarre that the closer would try to pawn responsibility on to others for his/her own actions.
    • With regard to, "The decision was between keep and no consensus." So, you didn't consider delete or alternatives to deletion at all? Despite there being (in bare numerical terms) more delete !votes than keeps and there being numerous suggestions for alternatives? Furthermore, there is an enormous difference between the community reaching a decision to "keep without prejudice" and the community not reaching a decision at all (i.e. no consensus). --RA (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've become rather involved in this now and probably shouldn't contribute a word in bold, but I have several points that I'd respectfully ask the closer to take into account.

  First, it's hard to separate this article from the so-called "British Isles Naming Dispute" (which means "Irish nationalists get butthurt about the naming conventions for geographical features"). There is a substantial contingent of Irish nationalists on Misplaced Pages who are trying to pretend that the name of the British Isles is controversial. This is not true anywhere outside Ireland, and attempts to further the Irish nationalist cause by interfering with Misplaced Pages articles are not something that we should condone. It's true that we Brits have treated the Irish very badly, historically speaking, and the Irish have excellent reasons to hate us—but Misplaced Pages is not a good place to further the dispute. Please could the DRV closer follow SpinningSpark's wise course in separating the so-called "British Isles Naming Dispute" from the substantive issues here.

  Second, only a complete idiot would turn a plausible search term into a redlink. Those who opine "overturn to delete", above, have simply not finished thinking this through. There are excellent reasons to remove this content, but a user might well search for "Politics in the British Isles". They should at minimum find a disambiguation page between Politics of the United Kingdom, Politics of the Republic of Ireland, Demography and politics of Northern Ireland and Ireland-United Kingdom relations. My own view has always been that this content should be deleted and then an immediate disambiguation page created. If this DRV decides on "overturn to delete", then please could the closer specifically say whether the disambiguation page would be appropriate, because I would like to create it in this space and I don't want to be accused of doing an end-run around the DRV when I do so.

  Third, although I have always been in favour of deleting this article and replacing it with a disambiguation page, and I still am, I also think that the correct reading of the debate was neither "keep" nor "delete". We failed to reach a consensus and an accurate close would have said so.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn for a start if you're going to close a debate of that length and complexity then you need to provide an explanation of your reasoning in a closing statement. That people might complain about a closing statement is not a reason not to provide one. What closing statement was provided did not mention the main arguments for deletion, as noted by Uzma Gamal above. I cannot therefore see any evidence that the nominator has weighted the arguments correctly. The question of whether the title should have a disambiguation page is simply irrelevant, since such an action would not be precluded by a Delete closure and does not require the history of the page to do. Hut 8.5 11:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete Despite a very lengthy discussion involving much argument, the closer chose not provide an explanation for their decision. Instead, he or she apparently decided that it was in the better interest of the discussion to restate a straw man argument made by one side rather than address the substantive arguments of WP:POVFORK, concerns around WP:SYNTH, WP:COAT, WP:MERGE, the suitability of the article as a subject for an encyclopedia, or the suitability of the article as a means to address the subject. All of which were raised during the discussion. Also, if he or she did not have the confidence to make decision, explain it and stand over it then he or she should not have made one. Another administrator willing to provide a rationale based on the discussion and with reference to policies and guidelines could have been found.
  The closer failed to address WP:CONSENSUS, which is not merely a head count but requires an assessment of the points and arguments raised. A fundamental problem I encountered throughout this discussion was the strident participation of editors who evidently knew little or nothing about the topic — but still felt compelled to "save the wiki" from some supposed censorship. Worse, keep voters cited references whilst very evidently having not read, or even seen, the books they were citing or even knowing for sure what they were about. Instead, they were clearly and evidently citing them, having found them on Google, based merely on their title. On several occasions, even, keep !voters cited books for which even a full reading of the title would show that they were not relevant to the subject! Instead, they cited only part of the title and left off the part of the title that showed the reference wasn't relevant! Keep !voters too engaged in strident defense of their position while evidently not even knowing the states involved or being able to fully distinguish them from each other. In one ludicrous moment, I had to cite three dictionaries and a UK government website to one who didn't know that "Britain" was a another name for the "UK". His/her response was to come back with a travel guide as evidence that we need an article politics. And these people were making arguments based on the finer points of UK constitutional law!? The same participant is still commenting above and still appears unable to distinguish the states involved.
  Additionally, in an AfD involving POVs over British and/or Irish politics, a British or Irish administrator should have the good sense to recuse themselves as being WP:INVOLVED (whether they are conscious of it or not). This is an international project. There are plenty of administrators of other nationalities that can resolve the issue with a neutral eye.
  Finally, Karl.bs' creation of a series of contentious "XXX of the British Isles" articles and category — including his creating of this one during the the CfD of a category of the same name, and despite having been asked not to — and Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log needs to be considered. These points points were also raised during the AfD.
  Very finally, the question of what do we do now wasn't addressed. It's easy for the keep !voters (including the closer) to now simply walk away. For those of us who edit regularly in this area, we are now left with a mess of an article, that is a fork of another, and an editors who can say, well, if there was an issue it wouldn't have passed AfD. It's a train wreck! WP:TNT and userification (or Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator) were raised during the AfD. Those would have been more sensible decisions that would have enabled a consensus to develop. However, it appears the closer only considered keep or delete and not alternatives to deletion (WP:ATD), even those that were raised during the discussion. --RA (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Good Lord. Did you really just say that no British administrator could possibly be neutral on this subject?—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  No. I said that in XfDs involving POVs on British and Irish politics, British and Irish admins should acknowledge WP:INVOLVED. That doesn't mean that no British administrator can be neutral on such a topic (a converse would be to say that no Irish editor can be neutrally on such a topic, which is equally ludicrous). However, to quote WP:INVOLVED, "administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." (My emphasis.) In fairness SpinningSpark acknowledged this to some part when he wrote, "I also apologise for being British - I had not realised that this could be an issue when I began this close and have made every effort not to allow my nationality to sway my judgement."

  Now, I'm not going to say whether he/she did or can act neutrally — or whether, given years of schooling and emersion in societal POVs on our respective politics, any of us can — what I am saying is that there are many other administrators of uninvolved nationality who could have closed the discussion with a neutral eye. Equally, I'm sure, others would raise an eyebrow if an administrator with the tricolor on their page closed the discussion with "delete". It is not unreasonable to raise one when an administrator with a Union Jack on their user page closes it with "keep" (particularly when accompanied by further no explanation for their decision save for a defense of the term British Isles).

  It is not the substantive point that I am making but it would have been better IMO if someone of a nationality other than British or Irish had closed the discussion. --RA (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think it's acceptable for our respected Irish contingent to try to control who can and cannot close debates related to this dispute. If there's an issue with a specific administrator then this of course can be raised, but I find it totally unreasonable for you to try to exclude a whole nationality on the basis that they're all collectively "involved".—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  So far as I am concerned, it would have been equally inappropriate for an Irish editor to have closed this discussion. Per WP:INVOLVED, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community", and I support that broad construction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  This is just bizarre, and it helps illustrate exactly how extreme the anti-British sentiment gets among Irish nationalist wikipedians. "Involved" in this context means "performing an administrative action having participated in this dispute or similar disputes before doing so". It doesn't mean "being of the wrong nationality", for goodness' sake!—S Marshall T/C 15:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Some editors here are on the verge of becoming disruptive. While some, to a greater or lesser extent, are attempting to improve the article as it stands, some others apparently won't take no for an answer and this whole thing is becoming like an Irish referendum. You know, keep voting till you get the desired result. Those attempting to work with the current article are being distracted by this disruption and are in danger of having a lot of good work simply thrown away. It is especially disappointing that two of the editors who seem to be most heavily involved are admins. If this conduct continues, where is the best place that that whole thing can be reported? Northern Arrow (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  As one of those attempting to work with the current article by starting to note some of the many ways in which it is misleading and POV-pushing (see Talk:Politics in the British Isles#POV_sections), I am not clear what disruption you see. Can you explain? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Who initiated this SECOND attempt (or the third debate) to have the article deleted? Northern Arrow (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, now I see what you mean. You reckon that seeking a deletion review of an unexplained XFD closure is disruptive. That's an angle I hadn't considered.

  In making that assessment, you are apparently undeterred by the fact that 5 out of the 6 !voters so far recommend overturning the closure.

  You wondered whether this can be reported, and I suggest that the best option would be for you to open an WP:MFD on the whole DRV process. That will provide an opportunity for you to explain more about your novel view that reviewing problematic closues is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  BHG, you need to decide which side you're on. If you want the article deleted (or blown up and bulldozed as you put it), fine, comment here. If you want to improve the article, then focus on improving it, and not putting a tag on every single section or sentence which needs improvement. It looks to me a lot more like you're trying to cripple the article, covering it with tags, so that any editors who wander into this DRV will lean towards delete. It's a petty ploy, unbecoming an administrator. --KarlB (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  You BHG, and to a somewhat lesser extent RA, are being disruptive because as time goes on it's becoming more and more obvious that you'll stop at nothing to get this article deleted. I just looked at MFD and it's not appropriate. I'm more interested in somewhere to report your conduct. Northern Arrow (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  @KarlB and @NA. I want the wretched article deleted, because it is a pile of POV-pushing, and the purpose of this DRV is to review whether the deletion discussion should have led to that outcome.

  If the article is to stay, despite being a POV fork and a synthesis, then it needs a major rewrite to remove the blatant POV-pushing and synthesis in which KarlB has engaged to promote his postnationalist perspective. (See for example the section on Scholarship), which is nothing more than an exposition of one particular perspective.)

  Please feel free to go ahead and report my conduct if you want to. If tackling POV-pushing is unacceptable conduct, then take me to the gallows. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Boabom

Boabom (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It appears that the article was deleted because the consensus among the admins involved seemed to be that the discipline is "bogus." However, I can attest that it is not bogus, as I attended a free trial class at a local studio. I don't know whether the history they attribute to their discipline is accurate, but the discipline itself is very real and merits a page. I came to Misplaced Pages to research the discipline to find out more about its history, any controversies, etc. but found only a deleted page. The school in Boston (Brookline, actually) is very real. I've been there and spoken with a teacher. The teacher (Ben Kelley, who has exchanged emails with me and is not pestering me or trying the hard sell or anything) said they have schools in Boston, Norway, South America, etc. He said that when Tibet was invaded, the practitioners scattered around the world. He didn't convince me of the history, to be honest. But the class was good, the teacher seemed professional, and it didn't appear to me to be a scam, a cult, or anything like that. I did wonder how they afforded the rent on that space with just running classes, so I assumed that they had a passionate angel investor or something. The waiting room smelled a bit too strongly of the handmade soap one of the students had talked them into putting out, but other than that it was a generally pleasant experience. I'm happy to research the topic and write a page. The history--which seems to me to be the only controversial component--can then be debated in real time in wonderful Misplaced Pages style. Thanks for listening...
Links:
http://bostonboabom.com/
http://www.boabom.org/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-Art-Boabom-Defense-Meditation/dp/1585425214
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=75700 (this one shows some of the controversy that could be worked out via Misplaced Pages... isn't that one of the huge benefits of Misplaced Pages?) Heykerriann (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse close - What matters is whether there is enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Boabom for a stand-alone article. See WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be and the AfD brought that out. The-Secret-Art-Boabom-Defense-Meditation (the art's only known documentation) and bostonboabom.com are not independent of the Boabom topic, so those don't count. bullshido.net/forums isn't a Misplaced Pages reliable source, so that doesn't count. But, your way ahead of the game with this article on Boabom. A few more write ups on Boabom, a Misplaced Pages article that limits its content to what those reliable sources say, and you might get passed AfD next time around. If there are schools in other locations, then local newspapers there may have write ups as well. "Boabom's half-dozen schools worldwide teach cycles handed down from a Chilean man named Asanaro." Is Asanaro a John Asanaro who lived in New Jersey at one time? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think one distinction is that they don't refer to themselves as a martial art. They're much more strongly related to yoga. So they don't compete, etc. The admins cited the http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:MANOTE page, but I don't think that page applies. That said, I don't feel strongly about this, but the class was really interesting, it seems to be great for kids, and I'd imagine that people who Google it will count on Misplaced Pages to have an entry on it, even if it is only in Boston in the US. I'm not going to fight for the article, but if it's decided it should be written, then I'm happy to write it. Is that wishy-washy enough? :) Heykerriann (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• We don't delete topic's per se, so the deletion is not a we can never ever have coverage of this topic, it's a deletion of the article covering a topic at this point in time. The issue here is that as said the article needs coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. All the facts need to be verifiable (so the idea that you might use Misplaced Pages to resolve disputes is actually missing the point quite a lot, Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be the sole source of information (WP:NOR, WP:V etc.) if it isn't already published elsewhere, then it can't be here. So if you want to attempt to write an article, then you are free to do so in your own user space (Say User:Heykerriann/Boabom, if you can find the references required to sustain it en you can bring it back here to see if it can be moved to main space. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)