Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randolph Stone (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The article has been very substantially rewritten during the AfD, and if notability remains contested it would be better to start the discussion from scratch.  Sandstein  11:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Stone

Randolph Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedied for appearing to be a repost of a previously-deleted article, but declined as "not a repost and has a lot of different references". Biography still fails WP:BASIC with no secondary sources - just two of Stone's own books. McGeddon (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to satisfy criterion #3 of WP:AUTHOR based on his writings and coining of the Polarity Therapy theory. Other sources that discuss Stone (that are not primary) include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], so appears to satisfy GNG too. I think any other issues can be addressed by editing and improvement. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources listed above by Kindzmarauli appear to be primarily vanity/esoteric press books, some of which were actually written or co-written by Stone himself. Only one appears to be of any significance itself (and then only because it was published by Elsevier). In fact, the publisher North Atlantic Books, a publisher with no notable non-fiction books shows up more than once, as does MWI Publishing, a pre-press service firm that doesn't actually publish, but prepares manuscripts for self-publishing. The websites are all relatively minor sites, and the news links to minor news outlets. There's no coverage in any major news, scholarly or medical sources. No offense intended, but if this were our standard for notability, we'd consider Ashida Kim to be the most notable martial artist of all time. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree regarding the sources, and Polarity Therapy, whether or not someone subscribes to it, is notable. People saying there are no reliable sources simply haven't taken the time to look... a 5-second Google search turned up a page on Polarity Therapy at the University of New Hampsire's website, which discusses Stone and even provides a bibliography of additional sources [10]. An additional reference, a mainstream published book [11], has been added to the article. The Ashida Kim comment is a red herring and totally irrelevant to this discussion. Finally, he clearly satisfies the requirements of WP:AUTHOR. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree about the sources how? That one was written by the subject? You can disagree, but that's a statement of fact, so you'd be wrong. That at least one of them was self-published? Ditto. That the news outlets are minor? Again, ditto.
Finding one mainstream published book which mentions the subject doesn't establish notability. Per WP:GNG, it must receive "significant" coverage in reliable, independent sources. One mention isn't significant. And your insistence that he meets the criteria at WP:AUTHOR ignores the fact that he fails the criteria at WP:BASIC, which states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (emphasis added). Even setting aside my concerns about the publication of those books, none of them meet that criteria. They were (with the exception of your mainstream source and the websites) all books advocating alternative medicine, and the list you provided contained fewer authors than books. Even the UNH link actually advocates for the subject. Finally, just because the 'therapy' is notable doesn't make it's creator notable. If the only thing he's notable for is creating this, then he doesn't need his own page, just some info on the Polarity therapy page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've ignored everything I've said. There are many reliable sources out there, you just don't feel like looking at them because it would mean you couldn't get this deleted. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kindzmarauli, MjolnirPants addressed the sources you brought. Sources need to be independent and of high quality. These sources you brought are neither. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have directly addressed everything you said. That is the polar opposite of ignoring it. And the onus is not on me to prove you right when we disagree. If there are good sources, you should go find them and present them here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources have been mentioned above in a couple different places, you just don't want to see them. That reliable sources exist is enough to establish notability, whether or not they have been added to the article. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me re-state, because you don't seem to be listening (hypocrite, much?). You must make your case here, not simply repeat yourself that there are links elsewhere. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is none so blind as he who will not see. I will helpfully copy and paste it here from just 6 posts above: a 5-second Google search turned up a page on Polarity Therapy at the University of New Hampsire's website, which discusses Stone and even provides a bibliography of additional sources [12]. An additional reference, a mainstream published book [13], has been added to the article. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First off: Tone it the hell down. You are getting very rude and that will not fly on wikipedia. Second As I have said once before, I have addressed this already. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:TNT. would need to be completely rewritten to make this an acceptable WP article. The alternative here would to userify this or move it to draft space so it can be worked over in accordance with the policies and guidelines, and put through WP:AFC before going live. This was created directly by an editor with a COI who is an advocate, per this statement and the resulting bias in content and sourcing is clear. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC) (withdrawing claim of COI and restating accurately, with apologies again Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)) (strike, see new !vote below Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Accusation of COI is not established or explained. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that you cannot see it. It is transparent to me. I have asked the user on their talk page to disclose their connections, and we are all waiting for them to answer there. we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you had done that first before making the assumptions of bad faith. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created by Polaritytherapie, an SPA with a current COIN case. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be lovely if you would PROVE the COI instead of repeatedly stating it with no evidence, hoping it will make it so. This entire episode is the kind of fiasco that happens on WP all too often. WP:BITE, assumptions of bad faith, making claims of other editors with no proof (a username does not automatically mean a COI). Pathetic. That the article should be deleted has not been even vaguely established. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more lovely if you would behave with some decorum instead of ranting about what's wrong with WP and calling other editors "pathetic". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but allow recreation using suitable sources if someone is willing to take that on. First, the article is based on non-RS so it would need to be re-built from the ground up, assuming that significant sources could be found. There is a chapter on polarity therapy in the Novey book that has at least a few sentences on Stone. Although I can't see more than a snippet, the index shows that he is mentioned on only one page. here. The therapy is given a page in the UNH health services website with two short paragraphs on Stone. We need to remember that it's not just the existence of sources, but that those sources must provide the information that makes up the article. From what I have seen, these two sources would result in a very short article on Stone. That may be preferable to the one that exists today, but it would be so different that the current one would need to be entirely replaced. Other than these two, no other sources on the current article are what I would deem to be reliable. I did search in JSTOR and found some mentions of Polarity Therapy but nothing on Stone. PubMed had some mentions of polarity therapy but nothing that I could find on Stone. Just to say that those avenues have been covered. LaMona (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references above and in the article are either from a connected organization which advocates for "energy medicine" without an evidence based approach or are merely passing mentions of Stone. While those books do mention stone, it appears he's only mentioned in passing on a single page or two. I'd hardly consider a fringe organization advocating for a non-evidence/scientific approach to "medicine" to be a reliable source for establishing the notability of someone who is considered by said organizations to be the founder of the "science." There's no further coverage in mainstream news or other reliable sources. Disclosure by article creator on his connection, although it's currently unclear what his connection actually is. Elaenia (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Passing mentions do not qualify as "significant coverage" per GNG, and the subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR either. The vast majority of sources in the article, as has been stated above, are largely "in universe" fringe sources that cannot be used to establish notability. Yobol (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, though may merit a brief mention in our energy medicine article. Alexbrn (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. I can't add anything that hasn't already been written above. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment OK so he's the founder of a quack therapy. Being a quack therapy doesn't make it non-notable, nor does it make the person who founded it non-notable. In fact, it's obviously notable since scientists actually take the trouble to disprove its claimed benefits, scientific basis etc., people write PhDs on it at real universitites, mainstream gerontologists and oncological nursing specialists evaluate its use in palliative care, and it has entries in encyclopedias of alternative medicine published by mainstream publishers, as does he. There is an entry, for example, on him in The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine (online copy here). If this were some obscure 19th century opera composer, no one would be arguing delete on the basis that an entry in a reference book by a publisher like Gale or this one published by Elsevier "just don't count", or because his music was lousy, or those who liked it were deeply misguided. There is enough in independent sources to write a brief factual encyclopedia entry with an authority control at the bottom. Obviously, the current one is wildly unsuitable. But is the real insistence on deleting this topic because most of you are afraid that once there's a brief article on him, that COI editors will constantly try to inappropriately expand it and use it as a coat rack for New Age nonsense? That's a valid fear, but I'm not sure it's a valid reason to delete. I also have to say that tone here, on both sides is quite unedifying. COI isn't a reason to delete. Putatively false accusations of COI aren't a reason to keep. Voceditenore (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no-one has suggested that this article be deleted because the thing this guy created is BS. In addition, no-one has suggested that the brief mentions this guy has gotten in reliable sources 'doesn't count'. It has been stated time and time again, by virtually everyone who has voted to delete: The mainstream coverage we've seen is not enough. Brief mentions, even if there's more than one doesn't establish notability. I could dig through my closet and find a national magazine article that mentions me, and clippings from a dozen reliable newspapers which all mention me. Do I then deserve my own WP article? No. There is a reason that WP:GNG says that notability requires significant coverage. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for bringing the Gale Encyclopedia article. That is the most comprehensive coverage of him I've seen yet. Other than a name mention, I can't find him in the book you list that follows that. It's possible those pages were blanked. The therapy itself already has an article, so the fact that it is written about isn't being questioned. The question is whether there is enough info on Stone himself to support an article. As you know, we need multiple significant sources. I have to go back and review what we have now, but for sure it isn't the article that currently exists, so I'm still seeing TNT as the only option. LaMona (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't consider a 280 word article on Stone (separate from his theory) in The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine to be a passing mention. I consider that significant coverage. For most other people in other areas that alone would be enough for editors to "keep", as a similar length of article (or even shorter) in the equally specialised Grove Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians would be for a composer. That's leaving aside the Elsevier entry and this one published by Mosby, or this one from the German scientific publisher Verlag Neuer Merkur. It indicates that he is notable within his field. In my ten years on Wikipedia and participation in over 150 AFDs, I find this one quite unique. I'm sorry, but in my view, the field he is in and the editor who created the article are strongly influencing both people's evaluation of the sources and their refusal to look beyond the poor ones currently in the article. This is the first time I've ever been to an AfD in this area. It was quite an eye-opener, and one I will not repeat. Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may have more access than I do, but the Mosby imprint book appears to be no more than a single mention on a single page. The German source could support his discovery of the method. I would still be inclined to put this kind of information into the article on Polarity Therapy because it is more about the therapy than the person himself. LaMona (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona, what pages Google books shows varies with geographical location. I'm in the UK. Anyhow, the second link in my first comment is to the book published by Elsevier Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis, pp. 49-50 with a section entitled "Andrew Taylor Still, the Palmers, William G. Sutherland, and Randolph Stone" in Chapter 4 "The Origins of Energy Medicine" and also includes photographs of Stone and the others. And no, we don't have an article on polarity therapy. Polarity therapy redirects to Energy medicine. As for the Mosby book, yes, it's a single page in the book, but even from the snippet view I get on Google, you can see that it's more than a passing mention on that page, it's about him and his views and gives biographical details. Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS The relevant pages the book published by Mosby are also available here. It's the first section—"Origins and history"—of the chapter on Polarity therapy with two paragraphs (approximately 200 words) on him. It's page 423 (p. 3 of the pdf). Voceditenore (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the reason why people are discounting "The Origins of Energy Medicine" and other books is that it's fairly difficult for people to consider a book supporting a quack method as a reliable source of anything. I personally can't find anything that doesn't seem to fall under WP:QUESTIONABLE or Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Medical_claims. I'd imagine the fringe community would support its own members and it appears he's at least partially known within the fringe medical community, but in terms of significant coverage from those outside - it appears there isn't enough. I think it's worth mentioning (last time I checked yesterday) Stone was briefly mentioned on the energy therapy article as the founder of polarity therapy, which seems suitable given the number and quality of sources instead of an entire article. Elaenia (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing a biography here, not a scientific theory, or a therapy. Applying medical sourcing standards to it is wildly inappropriate. A notable therapy/theory can still be bunk. This one is notable within the field of alternative medicine. In just about any other subject on Wikipedia, except alternative medicine, the founder of a notable theory/therapy would also be considered notable. None of the sources I've cited here are written or published by the polarity folk. They are in reference works about alternative medicine in general by large mainstream publishers. But this just proves my point. The view in this discussion is that alternative medicine is bunk and therefore any source which writes about it, even ones from mainstream publishers, are automatically bunk too, and therefore cannot be used to source a simple, brief biography. Well, no. Voceditenore (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument by Voceditnoire is the most compelling here and I completely agree that unrealistic (and inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia) standards are being applied to this article. It was apparently begun by someone with a possible conflict of interest, but this isn't an automatic rationale for deletion, paticularly if the topic is notable. Voceditnoire goes on to establish that there are at least three very good, mainstream references out there that cover Stone in detail. Since we've now established this, it's difficult for me to see how we can delete it based on a lack of reliable sources. If "in field" works published by mainstream publishers aren't reliable, then what is in any specific field? It does look to me like a novel interpretation of the reliable sources guideline, and I agree with Voceditnoire that there seems to be a tendency to want to delete because it's about a pseudoscience. Promotional wording can be edited out or revised to make it neutral. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all the effort those who want to keep the article have gone through, they've managed to uncover two paragraphs and two brief mentions in RSs (also, that German book is unavailable anywhere but on google, apparently). As I've said above, I can find at least twice that much verbage on myself. WP:GNG says that to be considered notable, it must have "...significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject..."(emphasis in original). I'm sorry, but I just can't see how this much text can be considered "significant".
Another thing that keeps getting glossed over is the issue of sourcing the article. We have three sources, two of which can be used only to support the claim that he invented Polarity Therapy. The third can be used to verify that he had some degrees, that he worked as a clinician and that he was influenced by Indian medicine and mysticism. That's it. How can we build an article out of that? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • MjolnirPants, a perfectly valid, neutrally worded, two-paragraph, properly referenced encyclopedic entry on this person can be built given the independent sources I've provided from mainstream publishers—his real name, what he is primarily known for, dates of birth and death, places of birth and death, what he studied, under whom, who and what he was influenced by, where he carried out most of his career, the last years of his life, a brief description of his publications. According to the Gale encyclopedia, "his writing, The Physical Anatomy of Man, became the foundation for all healing arts in the United States". Is the requirement now that there has to be enough to write an article of an arbitrary but unstated length? I've never seen that used as an argument for deletion before, especially when there is enough for a two paragraph article and where an authority control can be added at the bottom of the article. As for the German book, how can you say it's "unavailable anywhere but on google, apparently"? Observe WorldCat. It was originally published in Hungarian and has since been republished in German, English, Spanish, and Dutch. The author died in 1951. Voceditenore (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll copy paste Voceditnoire's comment (and information) from above, as I find it telling: I don't consider a 280 word article on Stone (separate from his theory) in The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine to be a passing mention. The Elsevier Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis seems to be a couple of pages from what I read above. The Mosby book [14], and Verlag Neuer Merkur [15] make four reliable, mainstream published sources covering Stone. I'm confused as to how these are not "independent of the subject" or are "insignificant". Furthermore, we are not discussing your notability, but that of Stone, so that comment seems unhelpful here. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Elsevier Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis seems to be a couple of pages from what I read above. No, it is a single quote and a passing mention, which simply mentions that he created Polarity Therapy, was an osteopath and repeats the quote.
I'm confused as to how these are not "independent of the subject" or are "insignificant". No-one has suggested they weren't independent. They are insignificant because they are not sufficient to build an article upon. Several other sources (including one written by the subject) were said not to be independent.
Furthermore, we are not discussing your notability, but that of Stone, so that comment seems unhelpful here. I'm not sure if you're aware of the fact that you just suggested that you were incapable of understanding a basic comparison. I assume you did not consider that implication, and instead went straight for the rhetorical device of simply dismissing something that you don't care to address. In case I am wrong and you really did miss the point, allow me to expound. I do not, and I would not expect anyone here to consider me notable enough for a wikipedia article. However, (repeating myself from above), I could produce a national magazine which mentions me (5 or 6 paragraphs in total in an article that runs about 20 pages), as well as several dozen local (but still RS) newspapers with short articles which are either about me or events I participated in and was named in. By any reasonable standard, an individual who may be notable within a specific movement, but who has warranted less mainstream attention than I would not be considered to pass WP:GNG. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your rhetorical device (and following extensive digression, including subtle personal attacks) is just that: a lengthy digression that is irrelevant to the notability of the subject of this article and I won't respond to it further. You say one source is a passing mention. Instead of rambling on about your own perceived lack of notability, could you please respond as to how you feel the other three sources are insignificant? Please try to be succinct this time, as you will need to explain why ALL FOUR of the references Voceditnoire provided are insignificant. Not one, but all four. You say one is a passing mention. Three to go. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is not a personal attack to point out an unflattering implication of your arguments. You made the argument. You made the implication. I pointed it out, and then stated quite plainly that I did not believe the implication. If anything, I paid you a mild compliment. I only went on to explain further because I didn't want to rest too much weight upon the assumption that you were being intentionally dishonest.
Second, if you still don't understand the point, then I'm afraid I'm not able to elucidate it any clearer.
Third, if someone accuses you of using a rhetorical device, and you immediately respond by accusing them of using a rhetorical device without acknowledging their accusation, you are painting a picture of an argument that exists only to win, not one formulated to be correct.
Finally, I already have explained what made those mentions insignificant. I did so at least once before you first posted here. I did so twice directly to you, including my most recent comment. I will do so again: We cannot glean enough information from them to build an article, and we cannot use RS's to establish notability, then use non-RS's to build the article. If you don't understand what I'm saying, I'm afraid I don't know how to make it any clearer. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could write a perfectly acceptable article about Stone with the sources available. What you're describing (and conflating) are two distinct issues: WP:N and sourcing content. Notability is established via multiple- reliable, third-party sources; I assume you accept that the four (or three, if you want to be picky) mainstream sources provided are reliable. 280 words in one is not a passing mention, I do not believe the other two to be passing mentions, and there's another source with a long section on Stone: Mindessence - The Polarity of Life and Death, which is perfectly reliable for covering on-topic facts about Stone and establishing his Notability. Notability is established, so already, the votes to delete based on lack of notability are incorrect (though you don't seem to be arguing that). With the content provided by our reliable, third-party sources, we can write a brief article that can be further expanded using primary sources, which are perfectly acceptable for verifying uncontroversial facts and for simply stating what the subject themself stated, per WP:PRIMARY. This is how difficult topical articles are written by those who take the time to do their research and you cannot discount sources simply because they're written or published by those with whom you disagree: they are reliable insofar as this topic is considered. So, Notability is established and I've said I could write an article with the reliable sources I have, according to Wikipedia Guidelines. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 15:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Master - the "speedy delete" criteria are included in the criteria for deletion in AfDs. G10 includes articles "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". I have not denied that one could (maybe even you could) maybe create a decent WP article about this person. But this article - the article we are discussing - would need to be fundamentally rewitten, which is why my !vote was WP:TNT. I hope that at least makes sense to you, even if you don't agree. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If G10 applied, it would have been tagged and speedied. WP:TNT is an essay, and though I read through the AFD mainpage, I didn't see where the speedy deletion criteria were offered as AFD "delete vote" criteria, rather the steps say you're supposed to check FIRST if speedy or PROD should be done before sending something to AFD. In any case, the article doesn't need to be deleted and rewritten from scratch as there's nothing especially controversial nor promotional in the existing article. It's a fairly bland biography as it stands, and needs some editing and rearranging. And the man has been dead over 30 years, so I'm not sure how he could be promoted nor to what end. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 21:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing from what didn't happen is invalid. And you are missing the point, which is that as you noted maybe somebody could write a valid article from the existing sources. That hypothetical article, is not the article we are discussing. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion rationale is invalid and bizarre. The article does not need to be rewritten, as I said, and circular logic will only make you dizzy. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 14:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the closing admin decides to delete this, please userfy it for me beforehand. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 21:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Speedy keep WP:SK#1  After looking at what are nominally delete arguments, there is consensus that the topic already exists in the encyclopedia.  As per our policies and guidelines, (see WP:Insignificance for specific quotes from our policies and guidelines), an argument for deletion that claims that a topic is not notable, is irrelevant when the topic is covered elsewhere within encyclopedia.  Therefore, no valid arguments for deletion have been set forth.  There may also an indirectly articulated argument that the article could be deleted as failing WP:V, and it is typical in such an AfD to see arguments to a faith-based belief in the TruthTM of science, but it is not part of our policy to limit this encyclopedia to such a walled garden.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I highly recommend you read WP:SK#1, WP:Insignificance and WP:V because they pretty much all say the exact opposite of what you've cited them for. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per voceditenore. The fact that the subject has an entry in a published encyclopedia by authorities in alternative medicine indicates that it is notable enough for an entry in this encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • just to make this clear, Polaritytherapie has disclosed that they are an advocate for polarity therapy, here and I do believe that they have no COI. I have apologized and said what I should have said, had i waited for a response to my inquiry, here. My apologies, again. The article is indeed the product of advocacy, which is distinct from COI, which is a subset of advocacy. The advocacy does show, and !vote above is unchanged. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing, and I do mean NOTHING in that statement that says they are here to advocate for polarity therapy. What the statement does do is explain how this new editor was driven from Wikipedia by being bitten and hounded instead of being helped. Will the closing admin please read the statement for themself instead of accepting Jytdog's "interpretation"? Thank you. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can shout all you want. It is what it is. Why the editor was here is not really important except that they were here for advocacy (be it COI or simply huge fan of the procedure) - the resulting promotional and poorly sourced (not NPOV) content is what matters. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not shouting. There is no promotional content in the article. None. Zero. Nada. It's a bland biography about a man dead for 30+ years. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia, when folks write in all caps and not in a wikilink to a shortcut, it is considered WP:SHOUTing. We disagree on whether there is promotional editing there or not. I work on that all the time, and to me it is obvious. Here is the article before independent editors started to work on it. It is full of unsourced content (which is what happens when people who are very familiar with the subject write about it), there are the fanboy quotes at the bottom, and the whole section Heritage that is a WP:COATRACK for polarity therapy itself. And the sources that are there, are not independent and are weak. This is product of someone very close to the subject who wants to tell other people How Great It Is. It is not an encyclopedia article. Like you and I have both said it may well be that someone could write an enyclopedia article that is neutral and well sourced. This is not it. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of the content you list above as COATRACK or promotional has already been removed from the article. Deleting the rest makes zero sense. AfD is not for maintenance. The article as it stands, which is what we are discussing here, is fine. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must have missed the three reliable sources posted above by Voceditnore which contain substantive content about the subject, which pretty much satisfies GNG to the letter. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Master, three things, as you are pretty new to WP. The first, is that closers generally ignore someone who peppers AfDs with comments sniping at other editors; this behavior harms your efforts to keep the article because it discredits you. Second, the three sources that Voceditenore cited are still not in the article; as I have mentioned to you a few times, it is the article that actually exists that is being !voted on here, If you want to swing !votes, improving the article will do more than anything else. (My vote remains !delete, TNT. That could change if someone actually rewrote it during this.) Third, about about the three sources; two of them seem I think most folks would accept Gale and the Clinician's Complete Reference to Complementary/alternative Medicine; The "Sprache der Zehen" source ("the language of toes?) does not seem super... reliable to me at least. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Closing admin, please note article is being rewritten from the ground up, a process that will be completed in rough outline today, but then probably take an additional few days or weeks of intermittent tweaking. The Clinician's Complete Reference to Complementary/Alternative Medicine was already referenced within the article. I added The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine. The objectively verifiable reality is that this person is recognized as founding this method. Whether it is or is not a terribly effective method is really not the AfD issue. The sources are objectively adequate for notability, using either of the two natural language meanings of "significant" within the guideline. I do notice the suggested alternative option of including his bio within an article specifically about polarity therapy, an article that does not exist. I also notice the stated underlying motivation for excluding [16]: a concern that the source seems to advocate to some extent for the therapy. I suggest that this should be handled by bringing forward sources that evaluate the method's merits. I placed a major restructuring tag on the page. I am not going to spend more time on this page at present, as I would much prefer to work on the article. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Edited and addended: completed a first pass in conjunction with @Jytdog:, using some of the sources below from @Cunard:. More to follow another day. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Randolph_Stone_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1220796890"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randolph Stone (2nd nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.