Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anneke Lucas

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Positive criminology. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anneke Lucas[edit]

Anneke Lucas (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)

This page is highly problematic:

  • It is not established that she is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia
  • The tone of the article is promotional
  • It uses a link to a webshop page where her book is offered for sale, as a reference (which I just deleted)
  • Not a single reputable source is referenced throughout the whole article
  • There is a possibility that her story is largely fabricated, as I could not find any media outlets that tried to verify it
  • The main contributor is @Saramgable:, who barely contributed to anything else but this article

Wikipedia has standards and which we should keep articles to. I vote to delete this page, though I welcome any counter-arguments.

Amin (Talk) 21:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Amin (Talk) 13:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, the WP:SPA part of the rationale isn't compelling or accurate. I see the article creator previously created Peggy Cyphers. I'm also not sure what is meant by "I could not find any media outlets that tried to verify it," when the Gnews results do reveal a few reliable sources including a fairly long passage on her in The Atlantic. We can verify the broadstrokes though not the minutiae. I don't see any basis for suspecting her personal story to be a hoax. Whether it's enough all together to weakly pass GNG, well, probably not and the nominator is probably right about the promotional aspect, which means WP:TNT comes into play, perhaps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: Thanks for weighing in. The Atlantic covered the prison-yoga that Lucas was involved with, not her claims of being the victim of horrific sex-slavery/torture (as she described in this video).
"We can verify the broadstrokes"
Can you help me verify? Especially the claims made regarding her Early life. I find the references there very questionable to say the least. Maybe I missed something.
Amin (Talk) 21:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why the sudden urge to delete the article today? Is it because you read about her in today's news? (I did.) If so, that makes her inherently notable. As for notability, I think she may be more notable for the child sex-slave allegations than for yoga.
    P.S. - I find it objectionable that the nominator of this AfD has both nominated the article and deleted a major part of it's content. Editors should not be involved in double roles in disputes. I am restoring the content. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the nominator, certainly, many claims made in the article don't seem to be backed up by a reliable source. As for the sexual abuse she endured, the Atlantic does refer to her without qualification as "a sex-trafficking survivor." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article lacks reliable sources to back gradiose claims. Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We do not delete articles because the article subject is featured in media. this one has established notability through sources and work.BabbaQ (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Right now, the status of the article does not look good, there are a lot of primary sources in the article and I am not finding a lot through preliminary searches. However, it seems that this could be a good encyclopedia article. So, I will work on cleaning it up and seeing if I can find good sources for the content - and then it should be clearer one way or the other.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Page is not very good but enough notoriety it seems. False or right, no matter, it has a real impact. I will provide a French translation soon the topic is stabilized.--Hcrepin (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that the article can have real impact, however, I am concerned that there aren't sufficient sources from mainstream media. The only real mainstream sources that I see is The Atlantic. The Huffington Post article is a blog article, written by someone in the yoga field.
  • There are 15 sources that I moved to Talk:Anneke Lucas because it doesn't seem that these fit the bill in terms of reliable, independent, secondary sources (e.g., articles written by her, content from her site, Yoga City (where she worked), blogs, youtube videos and podcasts, profiles or biographies that are likely to have been supplied by Lucas for speaking engagements and other reasons.
  • What remains are articles or pages, several of them in a Q&A format, for sources that I don't think fit the definition of mainstream media - and I am not sure how many of them are reliable sources (e.g., dnainfo.com, mic.dom, suitlesspursuits.com, Sutra Journal Home, happify.com, newsbeatsocial.com, givebackyoga.org, and mentalpod.com.)
  • It seems very strange to me that she is doing the work in New York prisons, which seems to make significant change in prisoner's lives, but there is not one New York newspaper that I can find that has written about her. I'll keep working on it, but if someone has thoughts about the sources could respond to Talk:Anneke Lucas#Finding reliable, independent secondary sources, that would be great! I will copy this message there.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cast vote for delete, agree with E.M. Gregory.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete notability has not been established, and my searches fail to establish it. Proquest search turned up only one article, in Epoch Times,[1] not generally regarded here as a WP:RS, but even if it were so regarded, we have this and The Atlantic and Mic (media company), and not only does this not look like enough, it leaves us without an indication that her dramatic backstory can pass Wikipedia:Verifiability. Certainly The Atlantic is the gold standard as sources go, but their story is not about her, it is about yoga in prison (as are the stories in Mic and Epoch Times), and cannot be used to verify the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I have had concerns about this article for some time, and see two major threads in its current content:
    • one is the extremely sensitive but unverifiable content in the 'Early life' section; this requires great caution and, therefore, if several Wikipedia editors (including myself) cannot find any corroborative material from reliable, secondary sources, then that content can simply not remain in the encyclopedia;
    • the other is the positive work Lucas appears to have done in promoting, teaching and implementing the benefits of meditation and yoga in the prison system.
A possible solution might be to delete the subject article, after merging the positive content (corroborated by reliable, secondary sources) in an existing article—such as Prison Yoga Project, or Positive criminology—under a new section addressing this very specific application of yoga/meditation, where she could be named as one of several practitioners (including James Fox, and perhaps others) advocating and deploying this approach.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 23:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a thought. There are three sentences that would be applicable to the Prison Yoga Project page in Anneke Lucas#Prison Yoga Project. And, perhaps a sentence could be added that mentions that she began the Liberation Yoga Project.
If the sources are available, it should be possible to present Lucas' work in the context of Fox's, since they worked together for awhile, and also include the unique differentiators in their respective approaches, if any.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 01:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Positive criminology makes sense. Yoga and meditation are discussed in a "Studies" subsection, so it should not go there. Perhaps in a section up above where different types of treatment are examined. The article is already chock-full of content, but is seems like a good place to go. In that case, it would seem to me that Prison Yoga Project should also be mentioned.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your ideas. There already is a section on Treatment and rehabilitation, to which a new subsection could be added to cover the different Yoga/meditation projects, locations and respective approaches.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 01:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another option might be to merge the Liberation Yoga Project and Prison Yoga Project into a general article about Yoga as a form of positive criminology (or something like that) - and also mention studies and other programs all in one article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is also a very good idea and would have my support. There is a precedent: Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine, which could be used as a guiding template for the article you suggest. Then, it could perhaps be added as a See also in the Positive criminology article.
Whichever way you decide to go, Carole, please feel empowered to be bold and to consider preparing a draft that could be developed collectively. Although I've just declared I am on an indefinite break, I would be motivated to participate in any way and at a time you deem appropriate and useful. Very best wishes and good luck.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 01:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link to the draft: prison yoga programs.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Carole; very well done! Your excellent draft is complete and to the point; it will fit well in the article on Positive criminology since it is of a similar length to the existing prose in the subsections nested under Treatment and rehabilitation. Therefore, I'd say your current draft is good to go. Thank you for all your great work in consolidating these related articles. With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 10:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm just wondering about next steps, because I don't know how a closer would assess the keep, delete, and merge votes. Do we ping people who voted to keep or delete earlier to get their reaction to the merge proposal?—CaroleHenson (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Carole; I apologize for delay in responding: I've just returned home and seen your latest message above. Unfortunately, I've never done a merge, but am hopeful this might help: Proposed mergers. Or perhaps E.M.Gregory, who proposed the merge, might know how best to proceed from here on? Thank you. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I know how to perform the actual movement of text and the following related steps. What I meant was, I don't see how a closer would find that there is consensus for the merger / redirect option.
Dear Carole; I understood what you asked for and hoped the above guideline might lead you to the required 'closing' procedure. I can only apologise again for not being able to help you more. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 19:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick, oh, ok, thanks. Regarding the Merger as a result of a deletion discussion section, I don't know if three votes would be considered "rough consensus" or not. I'm feeling my way through this part - but maybe input by others will help. I'm a bit lost at this point about what it takes to close the discussion.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Carole; I too feel a bit lost but it seems to me that your method of approach makes abundant sense. I will have more time tomorrow morning to carry out some research on the guidelines for closing a deletion request, and will report back to you by midday. Thank you for all you're doing to bring this to a successful outcome.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 20:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why I cannot copy the content into Positive criminology right now, so I'll do that. As an aside, I also added a comment at about there being sufficient content for a main article with a world viewpoint on the sandbox talk page.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amin, Shawn in Montreal, Petri Krohn, Johnpacklambert, Hcrepin, BabbaQ, and Saramgable: E.M.Gregory proposed a merger of several articles, which has been drafted prison yoga programs. I pinged you because you voted to keep or delete the article, or provided comments, before this option to merge the content and redirect to the receiving article was explored. See the conversation above. Does your vote change as the result of this proposal?—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reframe this to, do you support the merge proposal?—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether and where to merge the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am thinking a generalized article on prison yoga programs will overcome the passing nature of some articles focusing on one individual and their work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate you taking the effort to come to a solution @CaroleHenson: To be fair, I am not sure how viable a "Prison Yoga programs" page would have. By the same reasoning, would you also support a Wiki page on Prison Vipassana ? Or a Wiki page for any other general activity, that also happens to take place in some prisons? Amin (Talk) 03:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, based upon the state of the positive criminology and related articles right now, it would absolutely be undue weight to get into that kind of detail on this topic right now. I'm working on the positive criminology article - slowly - and will focus on that for now.—CaroleHenson (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merge proposal, as expressed by E.M.Gregory above (at 5:09pm, 4 January 2017) and executed by CaroleHenson, who added a new section into Positive criminology (at 7:06pm, 5 January 2017).
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 11:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - either as a biography or reframed as Liberation Prison Yoga. Passes WP:GNG. Problematic content and sources currently in the article is not relevant to AfD unless the entire article would need to be deleted and rewritten from scratch in order to be acceptable (i.e. WP:TNT), and it doesn't look like that's the case. We have an article in The Atlantic, about a third to half of which is about Lucas/her work (i.e. significant coverage). We have an article in Mic about her and her work (the title is "Meet the woman who...", so I don't understand those writing this off as being about yoga in prisons rather than about her and her work bringing yoga into prisons). Additional coverage in Epoch Times. Published interview in Sutra Journal. Small bit of press in Village Voice. She was also the subject of an interview on Huffington Post. On that subject, I want to address a couple things that come up at AfD from time to time. First, an interview is a primary source in the sense that it came from the subject and so can't be viewed as neutral; since it was an interview conducted by and published by an entity with no connection to the subject, it is nonetheless helpful for establishing notability. Second, the Huffington Post is a hugely popular source that absolutely contributes to notability. It has a blog format, but it's one with editors (the extent to which they exercise editorial oversight is spotty, of course, but it's not a personal blog). There are indeed many contexts in which it's not a reliable source, to be sure, and the ideal would be not to use it in most cases, but for notability purposes it works. There are plenty of sources which aren't known for rigorous, accurate reporting, and yet support notability (think about someone being the cover story in People or Entertainment Weekly or something) because notability is about what's worthy of note, so mainstream sources (assuming we're not talking about a venue that promotes fringe views, etc.) certainly helps notability. Then there are some other not-bottom-of-the-barrel-but-not-great blogs like ESME. This seems like GNG to me. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are some people with multiple bolded !votes (e.g. a delete and a support). Please combine or strike one. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was among them. I have now struck the "delete" in favor of a redirect. I support a redirect/merge, but do not see enough notability for an independent article, in part because although the work she does is verifiable, her dramatic backstory would need much stronger sourcing to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was going by the "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus" represented a second round of voting. Common sense, would seem to mean that the second vote (where there is one) overrides the initial vote. What I am seeing is:
User Initial vote Merge, redirect to Positive criminology#Prison yoga programs
Amin Nominated Support
Shawn in Montreal Comment, no vote -
Petri Krohn Keep
Johnpacklambert Delete Comment that appears to support, but no specific vote
Hcrepin Keep
BabbaQ Keep
Saramgable Keep
E.M.Gregory Delete Support
K.e.coffman Support
CaroleHenson Delete Support
Pdebee Delete Support
Rhododendrites Keep

—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People vote multiple times pretty often, and given the way human brains work, seeing existing opinions influences one's own (even if subconsciously, and even if in minor or contrary ways). Not everyone carefully reads the discussion to see who says what and how positions evolve. Generally speaking, for the processes that involve a bolded vote or !vote, best practice is to modify that [!]vote rather than add new ones to the same thread. For AfD, it's most clearly articulated at WP:GD. Not a big deal, and I'm certainly not saying there's anything fishy going on btw. It's just confusing. I'll also add that the table is a sensible idea, but as not everybody would think to opine and also change the table, unless someone updates it for them it stands to misrepresent people who subsequently change their mind (if only for a short time). </pedantry> :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in my earlier edit summary, I did not know that we are not expected to re-!vote when an AfD is relisted after a new proposal has been made. I therefore struck out the 'Support' because its accompanying text was shorter than the earlier 'Delete', which was more detailed. However, in my mind, the outcome of either !vote is the same (the positive and verifiable content is relocated to Positive_criminology#Yoga_and_meditation_programs) except that the article on Lucas is either deleted or redirected. I remain supportive of either of these two outcomes. Thank you, and my apologies for the confusion I may have caused.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 23:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry I was less then clear. I meant to strike my first vote and go for redirect instead of delete, but didn't bother to wade through to find my first comment and strike it. I normally would have but didn't feel up to the work with such a long winded deletion discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2017 (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/Anneke_Lucas&oldid=1072122927"