- Forrest Yoga (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Overturn Authorship still focuses on original work in yoga and attributes it to herself. This IS WP:NOR. Though the article has been rewritten time and again, it does not remove the basic tenant of self-invention, self-promotion, and a desire for exposure. Once we begin the slippery slope of allowing anyone to name an aspect of their interest(s) after themselves, and allow them to claim the elements of it originally, we fail as a wiki system and do not conform to our own limits. This article is a creation of someone’s original research into their own perception of “yoga” – it is an original "creation" in name designed to promote and bring notoriety. The primary support for the article is a wiki rescue editor who, despite their prior works, is exaggeratingly trying to legitimize WP:NOR, etc. No amount of sourcing will change a claim of research, creation, and promotion for personal exposure. Яεñ99 (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After multiple rewrites by various editors, there appears sufficient question to accept this. However, we are opening a door that allows any person or entity who can/will/does make self-assertion of new means to old methods. The idea "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" is right here in front of your eyes, only it has been renamed in someone else's image. The multiples of yoga enthusists who use "western" methods has and will exist for eons. A good friend of mine is a newly anointed yoga instructor, I now know where and how to tell her to proceed to obtain exposure, promotion, and identity for new practice. Only thing is, nothing about it will be new, just by a different name. Яεñ99 (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep no way the AFD could have been closed any other way, and being the topic of a New York Times article is pretty solidly notable and verifiable. If the article is NOR/POV/spam/whatever, there are channels to deal with that, but it's pretty clearly not a deletion candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Afd closer WP:NOR states that "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It seems quite clear that there are "reliable, published sources" that discuss the topic, and there seemed to be a clear consensus of that in the Afd. So, I stand by my close of this discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The sources discussed in the AfD are independent of the subject -- NOR is a restriction on editor conduct, not a restriction on article subject conduct. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - A properly and reliably-sourced article and an AfD that found a clear consensus to keep. There's nothing else to do here, DRV isn't Round 2. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I found something to do: coming here can have the effect of getting needed attention. The article did read and appear as promotional, so I did some additional rewriting: an effective way to diminish the impression of promotionalism is to decrease the use of the name within the article. An additional strategy is to use upper case letters as little as possible. One section emphasizing her personal attention was hopeless; since I could not figure out how to rewrite it, I removed it. The further reading section seemed an attempt to evade the policy on excessive EL's. One was significant, so I moved it to the references and removed the others. At least to me, it reads much better, and I suggest to Яεñ99 to drop this appeal. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Create - articles on Forrest Yoga Circle and Ana Forrest. Not only is Forrest Yoga notable, but the business it originated from, Forrest Yoga Circle, and the topic Ana Forrest meet WP:GNG as well. After all, she's Ana Forrest: Rock star of the yoga world. That's what happens when you get Hollywood celebrities to attend your business in Santa Monica, CA. Here's some source material going back to November 20, 1994 though August 2012:Los Angeles Times November 20, 1994[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with creating any additional articles on this subject - one is enough - although there could be an Ana Forrest redirect page pointing toward this article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Melanie here. It is a good indication of promotional intent to attempt to get multiple articles on a topic like this when the only notability for the person is the topic named after the person, let alone the business named after the person. Better to have one solid article, and the present one is the better choice, as the yoga method is more important than the individual and fits better with our articles on other styles of yoga. I agree there should be a redirect from the personal name, perhaps protected. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have created the redirect page. I will watchlist it, and if an attempt is made to expand it, I will take appropriate action. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow endorse the closure as keep. Solid decision by Mark Arsten. The consensus for keep was clear, after the article was majorly improved during the discussion per WP:HEY, and now DGG has removed most of the remaining promotional tone. Ren99 is repeating the same arguments that did not meet consensus the first time around, and that apply even less after several substantial rewrites. There is no basis for a DRV, except that Ren99 apparently dislikes variants of yoga named after their originators, and is unhappy that the consensus at AfD did not go his/her way. Furthermore, Ren99 is dead wrong in saying No amount of sourcing will change a claim of research, creation, and promotion for personal exposure. Sourcing IS the key issue for notability, and this form of yoga has received significant coverage, cited in the article, from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle and Boston Globe. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of sourcing, an article will be deleted if it is hopelessly promotional and there is no way to rewrite it, but it would be very unusual indeed to find an article with good sourcing where this would be the case. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawal Based on the corrections, commentaries, and arguments placed forward by DGG - his addresses are the convincing point in this debate; it is painfully obvious that he presents a neutral view that was carefully considered from all sides. In addition, he sought to improve the article personally and without bias, whereas others were unable to achieve his level of disconnect (thanks to Mark too for being supportive and helpful). The "?" intent by some others during the evolution did nothing but sully the process and the content, while also significantly infringing the wiki nom of WP:AFDEQ and leaving an impression of WP:STEAM. As a new editor, I rely on the ability of more seasoned editors to see past the haze and the indiscriminant; I have found one in DGG. Don't use/make insults to post-support your "claims," some of you are very seasoned editors and should know better! There are no winners or losers in a war of words; we are all belittled. Directly invoking names/name-calling is not palatable, particularly when you have no idea of what you are regarding Яεñ99 (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
