Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Anatole

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 Keep the very thorough history of citations and media exposure should be added to the article. -- Selket ^Talk 07:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Anatole[edit]

Clearly spam/advert violation of NPOV, also non-notable. VanTucky 21:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are the facts as Alex Anatole has related by him and his acquaintances. They are cited in various Russian language articles you can Google. He's cited in Professor Komjathy's articles-that's a fact, and included in the bio. You folks can research him on the web-those are facts. The name of the book is a fact. If you contact me, I'll send you .pdf scans of the articles you can translate to verify.Nemome 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.91.176.209 20:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could please be more specific about their problem with this. These facts can be

formation? There is a European publishing company that has contracted with him for his biography/autobiography. Would you like me to see if I can get you a copy of the contract? Nemome 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your assurances of factual accuracy do not count as citations. Also, remember that the qualification for inclusion is not truth but citation via reliable published sources. Even if you could provide citation for some of the assertions on the page (which you don't), it is written in the tone of a resume/advert for Alex Anatole and his organisation and it would still need a complete rewrite to jive with NPOV. Thus, per the tag, it meets the qualifications for speedy deletion. No, not any article is a promotion of that thing. It is a neutral encyclopedia. You might want to read WP:What Wikipedia is not. As to WP:Conflict of interest, read the policy page. It seems that in general, you fail to understand that it is Wikipedia policy that begs the page's speedy deletion. Arguments about the truth of the claims or the definition of terms does not negate it's candidacy. VanTucky 20:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also might want to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. VanTucky 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an address where I can send the scans of the articles and then you can verify them.

If you are using your policy as a guide than you must remove:

Gia-Fu Feng-he wrote translations and founded a center. So hasn't Dr. Anatole: The center can be viewed at www.tao.org. Again, if you want me to send you the articles, some of which are also visible on the website, give me an email address.
Raymond Smullyans categorization as a Taoist because he only wrote a book and an article: Dr. Anatole has written a book, and as I said, is currently contracted with a European publishing house for his biography (I'll get a copy of the contract if I can-send me an email address)
Wang Hao De-he's only cited in a couple of articles, as is Dr. Anatole, which I provide in the text
Benjamin Hoff-He only wrote a book, like Dr. Anatole
Ursala K. LeGuin under the categorization as Taoist-She wrote a translation with commentary, with no noted training. She is famous, but didn't Dr. Anatole write a book.
Bruce Lee as a Taoist-because writing a book with the word "Tao" in the title does not categorize you as a Taoist, nor does it signify Taoist training, nor does he claim Taoist trainin. Tao is a word that means "way"
Steven Kiel-because other than claiming to be a practicing Taoist what is he?
Michael Saso-He has written books on Taoism and claims to be an ordained Taoist priest, but so hasn't Dr. Anatole written books, and is an ordained Taoist priest
Alan Watts-wrote books, but makes no claim to be a trained or ordained Taoist, yet you allow him to be cited as one, because he wrote books.

The problem with Taoism and Taoist training is that it does not lend itself to the same criteria as science, which can be relatively easily verified by duplicating experimental results. Scholarly works on Taoism are relatively external views. They give dates, times names, procedures and comparisons and contrasts. The knowledge of a master is transferred in a personal relationship between he and the student, much as master musicians, doctors, or other practitioners of the highest skill levels within their respective disciplines, study with master teachers. Brain surgeons study with brain surgeons. The best musicians study with master teachers. Unless,a scholar has had the opportunity to have extended private study (20 years)it is unlikely they can develop a comprehensive understanding of The Way. Nemome 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge those of you who judge this entry to visit the website www.tao.org and read the newsletters and material therein, send me an email address where I can send you the scans of the articles. Many of you are much more computer savvy than I am. You can find the articles and verify the veracity. Promotion...well, the question is the validity of the information.

Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. The burden is on the article's creator to prove notability and the existence of citations, not us. Having everyone who wants to verify information e-mail you is not what we do here. As a tertiary source, verification should be #1: citations for all information should be in the article using appropriate tags and references. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 23:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the basis of the inline sources which are provided. The article is missing some basic information, such as the date of his birth. The PLU "citation" is more than a listing, but a full paragraph in a reasonably RS which does give some biographical information that does support the article. The Harvard one includes signif. details not in the WP article. " represent the Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine here in America." an aspect not mentioned in the article. I consider this just sufficient. As for the Russian sources, pdfs are not necessary--they need only be listed as references and a key sentence or two translated--I would certainly GF based on that. Surely the sponsors of the article can do that much. DGG 00:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any person who's sole advocates for notability are his own students is seriously lacking in that respect. Also, I tagged it for deletion not only on the basis of questions about notability, but that per the description of speedy deletion criteria about soam/advert articles it would require a complete rewrite to comply with NPOV thus qualifying it for deletion. This article's sole creator (Nemome) is an student/member of Alex Anatole's organisation, and has clearly failed to follow NPOV and certainly violates WP:Conflict of interest. Despite the article passing a Google test (which is a forbidden test of notability anyway), the citations it is lacking are all in important areas of biographical information, as well as any outside sources confirming the non-profit tax status. Hmm, an article of questionable notability that is written like an advertisement by editors with a conflict of interest? sounds pretty qualified for deletion to me. VanTucky 00:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nemome 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)How do you define an advertisement? Oh, and isn't that a promotion on the right side of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra[reply]

Yes, but that's what encyclopedia publishing companies do. O.K. added the links to the Komjathy papers. Regarding the other information, so even if I cite the articles, they are in Russian. You are going to delete this if you want. You all don't have to email, I'll post the .pdf to a common area if you want. If one of you speaks Chinese, pronounce the name of his master and draw the characters that could be used to produce those sounds, you'll find a set that mean "Enlightened One"

Now is anybody going to address either the lack of or comparable qualifications in those "Taoists" entries I cited. Because if you don't, that shows unequal treatment at least in regards to categorization, if not inclusion. Oh, and isn't that a promotion on the right side of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra

Personally, I have no problem with maintaining a caveat on the entry. Most educational institutions won't accept Wikipedia based research anyway, but to deny the entry is to deny a source of information. As Napoleon said, "History is merely a fantasy upon which we all agree." Then, again, that's power...isn't it?

Now, as far as being a student, does that invalidate the information? Hardly. That doesn't make it innacurate. Considering the citations I've notated regarding, shall we say qualifications of Taoists, who is putting this stuff up and qualifying people anyway? At least I've been forthright. Frankly, Vantucky is an avowed atheist, per his own Wiki page, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest, given he seems to be the most vehement antagonist against a spiritual professional?

Saw the thing on his birthday: 5/20/1948-He doesn't like to publicise it.

I'm sorry, it's too funny. Wikipedia not allowing a Google test when no institution of higher education will allow a student to cite Wikipedia. That's the pot calling the kettle black. Assign a caveat.

Got one last question: How many entries for persons are written by disinterested parties? Basically, all anyone has to do is get someone to submit a properly formatted article for them, giving the impression of arms-length submission. So,is it the validity of the information or jumping through the proper hoops and keeping the veil in place? So, maybe some day a reader of one of the russian articles will think,"we should do a Wiki entry of him," and then it will be o.k. Or maybe somebody will go to the website, or attend one of the seminars and think the same thing.

It's funny, we always present that the Taoist philosophy makes sense for not only the spiritual individual, but for the atheist, because it provides a philosophical model that allows both to pursue maximum contentment in life.

Wikipedia, because it is a commonly edited vehicle, will always be full of myriad incongruences, of which I was able to find quite a few just today and pointed out in this page.

It is part of a network of information that hopefully guide people to accurate information-nothing more. Now, you're either helping this information to get out, and I'm trying to get some guidance here, or you're pendantically following a catechism that is unequally applied. Maybe some day, his notability/notariety/fame that exists in Russia will breach that hurdle Vantucky demands (I'll bet he sings the praises of his martial arts instructor).

Oh, took this section from Chopra's page:

"Chopra was born in New Delhi and educated in India. He completed his primary education at St. Columba's School in New Delhi and eventually graduated from the prestigious All India Institute of Medical Sciences in 1968. He emigrated to the U.S. in 1970, becoming board-certified in internal medicine and endocrinology , and after interning at a New Jersey hospital, trained for several more years at the Lahey Clinic in Burlington, Massachusetts and at the University of Virginia Hospital. He taught at Tufts University and Boston University Schools of Medicine, became the chief of staff at the New England Memorial Hospital and established a large private practice. He became a leader in the Transcendental Meditation movement, but later branched off on his own to pursue broader aims in mind-body treatment.

Chopra is the co-founder of The Chopra Center, which he founded in 1996 in La Jolla with Dr. David Simon; in 2002 the Center moved it's official headquarters to La Costa Resort & Spa in Carlsbad, California with a branch in New York City and other centers opening soon.

In 2004, Chopra was recruited to co-write a script with Indian film director Shekhar Kapur on a proposed film to be made about the life of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha.

In June, 2005, Mallika Chopra, Deepak's daughter, launched a discussion blog [1] with Deepak, Shekhar Kapur, and other well known voices. The stated purpose of the blog is to present original voices from South Asia (particularly India) and discuss a variety of topics.

In 2006, Chopra launched Virgin Comics LLC alongside his son, Gotham Chopra, and Richard Branson, famed entrepreneur and thrill-seeker. The aim of the company is to promote and examine Southeast Asian themes and culture through the use of the traditional comic book medium."

NOW, OUT OF ALL THESE CLAIMED ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THESE PARAGRAPHS, WHICH I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT, THE ONLY CLAIM WITH A SOURCE CITED IS THE VIRGIN COMICS CLAIM!!!"

But then again, everybody has heard of him, right....?

Look, I'm in here arguing and I'm done. Here's my last defense: https://maxvps001.maximumasp.com/v001u23zac/Tao/Center/ArticleDetail.asp?ArticleID=37 Maybe this will give a sense of the rationality of the Center's Approach

Beyond that, you will do what you're going to do. If you don't think there's value in his bio as a part of this web of information, this is your kingdom. I expect you'll rule as you choose. Perhaps you are the philosopher class that killed Socrates.

Please refrain from making personal attacks as the above, which is a breach of Wikipedia etiquette. You seem to be misunderstand that Wikipedia is not a traditional paper encyclopedia, and that there are fundamental differences in how it operates. First and foremost is that it is not ours in the sense of editor seniority. It is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation but all editors (including you) are responsoble for content and have a say in creating consensus. Also, you seem (once again) to fail to understand that your arugments are peripheral because you are not addressing the veracity of deletion per Wikipedia policy. Consensus on teh application of Wikipedia policy alone decide the fate of articles up for deletion. The most expedient way of resolving is then to stick to discussions of the topic via policy. About your examples: to begin with, using comparision is not really a way to argue around the topic successfully. We are talking about the merit of the article as it pertains to WP:Notability and WP:NPOV (as well as any other foundations of Wikipedia inclusion criteria). You seem to misunderstand the image in the Deepak Chopra article as well. This is not an advertisement, but an example highlighting the text. Furthermore, the article under discussion is written like an advertisement for Alex Anatole and his organization. That is, it simply lists the uncited "history" of Anatole and his group and does not address all points of view equally. The fact that the article only addresses Anatole and his group from the perspective of a supporter is because it was written entirely by a student of his, which clearly violates NPOV and WP:Conflict of interest. When sections of an article violate this, or it is mild, then we simply revise it. But in this case, the entire content of the article is not fit for inclusion. Therefore it begs deletion. VanTucky 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to be misunderstand that Wikipedia is not a traditional paper encyclopedia, and that there are fundamental differences in how it operates. First and foremost is that it is not ours in the sense of editor seniority. It is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation but all editors (including you) are responsoble for content and have a say in creating consensus. Also, you seem (once again) to fail to understand that your arugments are peripheral because you are not addressing the veracity of deletion per Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia is adjudicated by anybody who decides they want to have input they believe conforms to accepted Policy. Yes, consensus, which just means more opinions for a specific point of view than for another. That's all. Again I use the comparison of other similar individual entries that demonstrate evidence of uneven application of policy. Uneven application of Wikipedia policy is not a peripheral issue. For, if those entries conform, than so does this. And if it doesn't, they don't either. I have requested help in making it conforming.

Then again,who was it that said, "some animals are more equal than others." Oh, yes...Orwell.

You seem to misunderstand the image in the Deepak Chopra article as well. This is not an advertisement, but an example highlighting the text.

"Grow Younger, Live Longer. 10 Steps To Reverse Aging." Deepak_ChopraSorry, the duck test says that's advertisement!!

That is, it simply lists the uncited "history" of Anatole and his group and does not address all points of view equally.

Well, since the entry is about "Alex Anatole" what would you expect it to be about and whose point of view should be included? It's not about all Taoists, it's about one Taoist. It's not about Abbot Liu, it's about Alex Anatole. It's not about Taoism in general, it's about a practitioner. One of the previous contributors to this discussion said:

The PLU "citation" is more than a listing, but a full paragraph in a reasonably RS which does give some biographical information that does support the article. The Harvard one includes signif. details not in the WP article. " represent the Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine here in America." an aspect not mentioned in the article. I consider this just sufficient. As for the Russian sources, pdfs are not necessary--they need only be listed as references and a key sentence or two translated--I would certainly GF based on that.

As for "notability" at what level does one clear that hurdle? One article written about an individual? Two articles written about an individual? Three? Writing one book, or does it require a second? Founding a Center? Having television interviews? Having news stories done about a subject? Is Wikipedia about hurdling a specific level of fame, or is it about information?

On that note, please see the entry for "Nick Cerio." As a martial arts expert Mr. Vantucky (per your own Wiki page), can you explain to me at what point his entry rose to notability: the book, or the few magazine articles in which his name was featured? Again, this goes to application of policy, not the policy itself. Uniform and equal application of policy is not peripheral.

Whereas there may be a "notability policy," (or any "policy" for that matter) there is still the variability of human interpretation involved. Frankly, that's why the Supreme Court has all those 5 to 4 decisions, even though they hear the same evidence. They interpret laws (policy) differently. Just as those creating a consensus here will interpret policy differently.

As for neutrality, should I just call someone on the phone and have them submit it? If the information is valid, which gets back to my request to help make it conforming, then why is the source a concern? Then again, this issue begs the question: How do you vet the neutrality of all the contributors? I would think, sitting behind a computer, that would be impossible. Isn't vetting the information more important?Nemome 11:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If the information is valid, which gets back to my request to help make it conforming, then why is the source a concern?" Because the criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We are a collection of what other people say, not a information hub in ourselves. The notability policy does not need any sort of "interpretation", we are not the Supreme Court. WP:N says "He or she has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". Passing references to the guy doesn't allow for that, nor does it allow for citation of any of the information in here. "At the age of eight, Alex met Master Lu Yang Tai, the “Enlightened One”, a Taoist sage whose genealogical lineage extended to the ancient origins of Taoism. He studied all aspects of the Tao under Master Tai and was ordained as a Taoist priest in 1966,and with his master founded the Temple of Original Simplicity."? SAYS WHO? None of this is cited, and the reason is that there are no reliable sources to do so. Therefore, the article should be deleted pending some actual sources that can verify all this information. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable. The name gets 14 ghits none of which seem to refer to this person. The articles cited are nothing but an example of a walled garden and since he appears to have made most of his impact in America (based on the article) the lack of ghits or published secondary sources from that area of the world is a good indicator of lack of notability.Peter Rehse 12:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Not Notable and specifically Mr. Rehse's Research:Nemome 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the Russian Version of Architectural Digest File:GMAnatole.jpg File:GMA2.jpg File:GMA3.jpg File:GMA4.jpg

From Men's Health in Russia promoting Taoist and Martial Arts Seminars File:Lecture0.jpg File:RRM1.jpg File:RRM2.jpg File:RRM3.jpg

Announcement in Russian Martial Arts Magazine about lecture and seminar File:Lecture9.jpg

From Another Russian Martial Arts Magazine

Image:noch1.jpg File:Noch2.jpg File:GMAlast.jpg

These examples fail to pass muster. As mentioned above, he is a US-based teacher according to the article and his website. If there isnt any media about him but for his country of origin saying "look, this guy is a famous taoist in the US!" and then there is no US sources on him that meet notability criteria, then there is a serious lack of qualification for inclusion. Also, I have failed to see any reliable sources on the verifiability of the 501-C3 non-profit religious status. If this can't be proved then I think it qualifies as spam per WP:Spam. VanTucky 17:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are scans of articles from The Boston Globe:

File:Bg1te.jpg File:Bg2te.jpg File:Bg3te.jpg File:BGte5.jpg

From Wikipedia: "All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable"

So, the THREE Boston Globe articles don't count.

The article citing Dr. Wang's visit from the Quan Zhen sect doesn't count, recognizing him as a priest and a temple-doesn't count.

So, the Boston TV interview doesn't count.

The citations in Harvard's Pluralism project,doesn't count.

The academic articles by Komjathy don't count.

The fact that the academics wished to invite them to their world conference way back in 2001 http://www.daoistcenter.org/Articles/Articles_pdf/Report.pdf. doesn't count.

The article in Architectual Digest doesn't count

The article in Men's Health doesn't count

The articles in two Martial Arts magazines don't count

Again, as in previous posts, if his entry doesn't past muster, than the entries I previously cited don't pass muster either.

As for the 501C3, go to http://apps.irs.gov/app/pub78 and look it up. Center of Traditional Taoist Studies, Weston, MA It's right there. Nemome 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so it may be arguable that it meets notability. However, it still completely violates NPOV and WP:Conflict of interest. Since most of the disputable facts and history in the article are not cited (or cited correctly) and it was written solely by an editor with a CoI, it still begs deletion. VanTucky 19:21, 10 May 2007 (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.

Actually, I contacted one of the commentators(Wooty I believe) and asked him to revisit the information basically contained within this discussion. He claims to be a fellow with a library sciences background. He independently, re-wrote the entry according to his professional and Wiki experience to conform. I have not touched the text since.

Frankly, I hadn't looked at, because my computer excreted on the mattress. So, if the notability issue is relatively settled, then information assembled to conform to Wiki by a third party as a result of their earlier entry in this discussion supports neutrality in the entry and dilutes conflict of interest.

I gather you went to the IRS site and found the religious organization designation?24.91.176.209 14:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]