Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Bond

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Bond

[edit]
Joey Bond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · [1])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's precious little in the way of independent sources here. We have a press release by Janson Media promoting a DVD published by.... Janson Media; a Google Books link to one of the subject's books; a scan of a diploma (!); a link to the website of Satchidananda Saraswati; an obituary that makes no mention of the subject; an empty search result; something like a résumé; and a bunch of library/user-contributed database cruft ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). "Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Not so much. - Biruitorul Talk 23:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. sst[[User:SSTflyer|<span {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)style="color:black">✈]] 01:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In general, we have here a verifiable, neutral point of view and all copyright material is secured under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. The article strives for verifiable accuracy and citing reliable sources, as should be when talking about living persons. There are no personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions which do not belong.
Specifically, the article is about Joey Bond, a notable figure in the world of Martial Arts, who hosted an nationally syndicated PBS series. His Tai Chi Innerwave program was, verifiably, carried by 124 PBS stations across the US and Canada. ...so, notable indeed.
The article has 13 references, and is rated 'Start-class', which is appropriate; I would hope other contributions will expand this article which adds to knowledge about Tai Chi and martial arts. A 'Start-class' article, by definition, cannot have many references in its inception and awaits expansion. It beleive it is permitted to cite the publisher of a DVD series (@Checkingfax: would that be correct?). Google Books links are valid references (again, @Checkingfax: would that be correct?) as is a scan of a diploma from one of the most famous magic schools in the world, awarded to the subject of the article.
I extend appreciation to user:Biruitorul for his good suggestions, ...no so much for his nomination that the article be considered for deletion . These corrections have now been completed; a link to the website of Satchidananda Saraswati has been more appropriately placed in the External links section and has been deleted from the body of the article; the obituary notice reference has been removed - - - ...absurd really, and thanks again to user:Biruitorul for pointing it out. As well, the empty research result has been deleted. The library/database-driven references each complete pieces of information about the PBS video series, but perhaps there are too many; ...awaiting your kind response on specifics in this instance.
Finally, although Wikipedia states that Wikipedia:You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time , I believe the rules have actually been followed in what is a noteworthy, verfiable, neutral, copyright-secured article, with lots of room for expansion. Kindly let me know what else might be done to improve this article and it will be done, to be sure. If more 'Coverage in multiple published secondary sources' are needed, I'm sure I can dig these up, if need be immediately; the article is 'Start-class', after all. I am a proud Polyglot and I am using my multilingual skills to make small contributions to this amazing encyclopedia.
PS. ..hope it is not objectionable that I ping a few Wikipedian associates to hopefully attract them to contribute to the discussion. @Corinne, Jerome Kohl, Robvanvee, Vipinhari, Bgwhite, StarryGrandma, and GrammarFascist: Merci infiniment! very best wishes, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – as this article is very new and has potential. It is off to a good start. PS: I was aware of this AfD (Article for Discussion) thread before being pinged by Natalie. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep –  It seems to me that Joey Bond is sufficiently notable. Besides that, the article is interesting, adequately written, and contains several reliable sources. I also think it could be improved. Corinne (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This AfD is not the place for discussing Romanian names (best done on the article's talk page where it already is) and it seems the WP:CANVASS line is being crossed. The reference issues mentioned by the nominator are valid and I don't think the subject is notable as a martial artist (WP:MANOTE). Less sure about WP:ENTERTAINER hence I hold my vote. The article itself smells of over promotion but that is a reflection of the images and references.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PRehse and Checkingfax:. Thanks very much @PRehse:. I deleted the 'Romanian Roma name of Jeo Ruv' sub-section as per your kind advice. Of course you are totally correct about the right place for such a discussion; it resides on the article's talk page, as you mentioned. ...also reduced the number of images to one per skill (Magician, musician, writer, Tai Chi PBS series) lest they be construed as promotional, as you kindly pointed out. Many thanks! --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PRehse and Checkingfax:. @PRehse: PS. ...not my intent to WP:CANVASS—my aim is Appropriate notification to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus, ...certainly not to influence the outcome of this discussion in any particular way, which would be inappropriate. meilleurs voeux, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep –  This Article for deletion is a mistake! Many good articles started their Wikilife in rudimentary form, and I hope this article is kept and can grow. As is, I found this article interesting and I enjoyed it. I also picked up information I didn't know from the stated sources. The article went live 3 days ago and already has 320 visits, - obviously of interest.

In making considerations whether to embed an Article for deletion banner, Wikipedia policy states, "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. ...consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD."

"Civility is to human nature what warmth is to wax." I felt hurt by the uncivility of certain parts of the discussion on this AfD page — about peaceful Tai Chi practice of all things! Wikipedia policy says it needs contributions of good faith by editors willing to give of their time and talent. User:Biruitorul opines dramatically that there is 'precious little' in an article of substance and good references. Not too bad, but then he says summarily (and patently incorrectly) that 'Romanian Roma don't have such names' (as Jeo Ruv) referring to the sujects birth name. But Wikiedia Civility tells us that"Insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. Wikiedia Civility also tells us to 'Avoid condescension' and then we read comments by User:PRehse saying 'The article itself 'smells of...' . How does this mode of expression encourage people, like the main author of this article, to feel good about their precious time spent giving to Wikipedia. Thanks for your attention. Jbeaton5 07:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I just wanted to point out the obvious, which is that the votes of canvassed users/single purpose accounts Checkingfax, Corinne and Jbeaton5 don't do much to advance the "keep" side's arguments. No, averring that "this article has potential", without specifically underlining sources to bolster such a claim, isn't convincing. Neither is advancing preposterous claims of "incivility". At some point, if you want this article kept, you're going to have to show how this individual conforms to WP:BASIC ("has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") or WP:ENT. The rest is simply noise.
  • While we're at it, let me just say this about his name: Romanian Roma have official names in Romanian; I invite you to peruse Category:Romanian Romani people for a flavor. So it's likely he was born George Lupu (ruv=wolf=lup). While I'm not putting that in (WP:NOR), see WP:EXTRAORDINARY: exceptional claims require evidence. It's not really credible that all Romanian Roma but one would have names in Romanian. Either find a credible source or remove. - Biruitorul Talk 16:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Biruitorul. Did you just pack two completely unfounded scurrilous allegations in to your most recent opine here? a) My input is tarnished by being pinged by Natalie when I already stated in good faith that my awareness preceded her ping to me? b) That I am a S.P.A.? That is outrageous, sloppy and I take ultimate umbrage to it. Also, to accuse Corinne and Jbeaton5 of also being S.P.A. accounts? That is illfounded and poor Wikmanship. Ugh. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Be that as it may, would you like to demonstrate that this individual has received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", that he "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", that he "has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following", or that he "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment"? Because that lies at the crux of this debate, and no one has even attempted to do so thus far. - Biruitorul Talk 02:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The four sentences quoted above by Biruitorul, taken from Any biography and Wikipedia:Notability (people) are interesting. User then states, "The rest is simply noise."! The "noise" is easy enough to find; it's on the same page. The "noise" says notability is also that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", which Mr. Bond has done, demonstrably and verifiably. Also,"The text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person is notable.' which it does for a start-class article which will inevitably improve.
Further requirements to establish notability for Creative professionals, artists such as musicians and martial artists, mean "the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." This criteria has certainly been met for a start-class article, and the references already given are valid and can only grow. I suggest a <>{{cleanup-biography}}<> and/or <>{{BLP sources|date=January 2016}}<> be added to the page and we should move on to more positive, constructive endeavors with a higher perspective in mind; the article can only improve with time.
Mr. Bond was host of the nationally syndicated PBS television series, carried by 124 PBS stations across the US and Canada for 8 years. Press releases, video, posters, photos and newspapers all testify to the veracity of his notability and are linked to the article even in its present start-class stage. This article needs time to develop, just as hundreds of others I've read on Wikipedia; why the rush to 'consider for deletion' in this particular case?
  • While we're at it, regarding Mr. Bond's birth name, it probably doesn't count for much but I have heard Mr. Bond talk about his birth name Jeo Ruv in interview. More importantly, there are hundreds of references to the bona fide Romanian Roma name Jeo (Joe) all over the web. The claim (above by Biruitorul ) states that "it's likely he was born George Lupu (ruv=wolf=lup)."!!!. There are several mentions of his birth name as Jeo Ruv on Wikipedia Commons and elsewhere which show images with attached description clearly stating Joey Bond's birth name is Jeo Ruv. (you have to go the file page-Summary description, not the image page). So his name is George instead of Jeo (Joe)? How would Biruitorul know this? What is his basis for this hypothesis? Now that's preposterous... User:Jbeaton5 --Jbeaton5 09:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - May I suggest that we try to improve the article by:
a) Adding the {{cleanup-biography}} or {{notability|biographies}} templates, b) Rewriting, or c) Asking other editors for advice and/or d) asking other editors to help find other sources. Many thanks; just trying to help. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I always liked this amazing artist and was very happy to read the short Wikipedia article on Joey Bond. ---trusting Wikipedia will strive for its further expansion, something I look forward to. I am a Wikipedia user and appreciator, and we are legion. Hope this is of some use and help. 96.20.154.75 (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I thought it useful to repeat comments by Checkingfax and Corinne which are very pertinent and important to this discussion but which were left here So, lest no one sees their thoughts on that page, I have taken the liberty (hopefully causing no system abuse) to copy the highlights here, as these opinions clarify a great deal about this particular AfD issue. The purport of these comments can be verfied here, f need be.
Checkingfax stated:
  1. - "Biruitorul has a chronic edit record of nominating an average of 5 Romanian articles for discussion (AfD) every month endlessly and getting shot down on most of them. This is toxic to the project and a waste of our limited editorial resources."
  2. - "Article Joey Bond has issues, but they are fixable. It is not your average crap article that deserves deletion discussion."
  3. - "I do not see much WP:Alternatives to deletion (ATD) going on here, and that is a WP:Policy"
  4. - "There is also WP:Before which is also a POLICY (not a mere guideline or essay)."
  5. - "There are a lot of junk articles on the Wikipedia and Joey Bond is not one of them. Deletion discussion is premature."
Corinne stated:
  1. - "I am more concerned with the issue Checkingfax raised, that Biruitorul is engaging in a pattern of nominating a certain type of article for discussion leading to possible deletion, unnecessarily wasting other editors' time,"
  2. - "I support keeping the article, and I agree completely with Checkingfax"
Hope this is helpful and provides clarity. User:Jbeaton5--Jbeaton5 08:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Kindly see Juan d'Anyelica - one sentence, no references, and yet there are perhaps 50 like this on the List of flamenco guitarists page. ---no deletion nomination. It does carry a {{Spain-guitarist-stub}} notification. --- wondering if that is what we should be doing to resolve this, i.e. putting a stub banner if it qualifies. Many thanks. User:Jbeaton5 --Jbeaton5 08:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if I am looking at the same article. However, the comments about keeping stubs seem wide of the mark. This article is not a stub and has multiple sources, and multiple sources usually qualify for keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But surely, Robert McClenon, you will agree that the quality of the sources used in the articles matters too. So which sources do you find persuasive here? The commercial press release? The book authored by the subject himself? The scanned diploma? Or the search result cruft? Because by any normal reckoning, none of those meets the "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" standard set forth by WP:RS. - Biruitorul Talk 18:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • BiruitorulIf I may: I found that the press release, by an established company, contained valuable information; there is precedent—for example, there are a few press releases used in The Beatles; the book, registered with valid ISBN, is also a good source of information; the diploma, whether from Yale or any reputable place of learning, proves the person is an alumni of this school—a scan of the diploma makes for noteworthy information; the search result can be deleted if it is objectionable—it was used because it yielded many pertinent results. You are right here if you are suggesting we should probably choose just a few select ones. Indeed, it would be less cluttered. Finally, I'm sorry that tone here is not as peaceful as I would have wished; if I could change that, I would—as Epectitus said, you can only control yourself, not others. EQ is more important than IQ, but rarer I'm afraid. But the lake remains the same... Perhaps we should just let those in admin decide this issue, and not disrupt their progress.–just a thought ...don't mean to offend, to be sure. best wishes, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Press releases are, while not strictly forbidden, frowned upon: see WP:SPS, footnote 9. Your only use for the book is to show the subject wrote it, and the mere fact of writing a book in no way contributes to someone's notability. Not only is the scanned diploma unacceptable, hosted as it is on the user-generated Wikimedia Commons, it too adds nothing to a claim of notability. (Merely graduating from any educational institution, never mind the "Magic Castle", is also not evidence of notability.)
          • User:Biruitorul is out of line on the notability of the Magic Castle! I am in a coveted profession as it concerns my being a Magician Member of this prestigious, world-renowned, Private Club and international entertainment center located in Hollywood, California.
          • I take umbrage with the editor, Biruitorul, as I present, for the edification of all concerned, proof of Biruitorul’s utter ignorance displayed in his response to the thread started by editor Robert McClenon. I will add that Biruitorul is opinionated and condescending in his announcement: “ . . . never mind the “Magic Castle" . . .”. What Biruitorul is disparaging is precisely the renowned Magic Castle, whose Board of Directors' president is Academy Award host, Neil Patrick Harris.
          • This is a prime example of ego-driven eddy-currents that slow the overall advancements of Wikipedia; his demeanor is detrimental. I may not be versed on the entire workings of Wikipedia, however I believe it would be in the best interest of the Wikipedia administration to address Biruitorul's behavior and attitude directly. --JOEYJEOBOND (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Mr Bond (I will address you assuming this is your own account), are you aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy? Dahn (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • User:Dahn I am aware of Wikipedia's COI. I have visited your talk page and recognize your intimate connection to User:Biruitorul. N.B. This is not about myself, nor about family, or friends. It is about a historical institution called The Magic Castle, which in essence is a sanctity for professional magicians, and User:Biruitorul's disparaging remarks, including and especially, (“ . . . never mind the “Magic Castle" . . .”.) which also insinuates that a diploma from this institution is of little value; an ignorant remark certainly when talking about the Carnegie Hall of magicians, or, what the Screen Actor’s Guild is to professional actors. Biruitorul is the one sitting center stage, and his demeaning remarks require investigation into his behavior as an 'editor' for the prominent and world-wide influential encyclopedia that is Wikipedia.
              • Biruitorul needs to address the issue of ill-informed and disparaging comments made by him about The Magic Castle. Biruitorul has made a critical error. He is turning a blind eye to the categorical deliberation and key issue at hand, which is arguably the most respected magic institution. Now, if that is not clear enough, I will proceed toward the platform of edification on this singular topic of The Magic Castle. My announcement is in dedication to all those who have been party to Biruitorul’s patent denigration pertaining to the notability of the Magic Castle, and reception of the Academy of Magical Arts diploma. You will discover the intent and purpose of my focalized point of the subject under discussion, with assistance of what is proffered below. And so, here are various points that will provide Biruitorul with valuable insight:
              • Almost every legend who performed at the Magic Castle": Houdini, Blackstone, and Dai Vernon, the man known as "The Professor” who is considered one of the greatest sleight-of-hand artists who ever lived and who, in 1919, had a legendary run-in with Houdini. These are but a few who have honored the hallowed halls of this legendary venue. To become a ‘Magician Member’ is difficult, considering going through the test of performing for a panel of judges made up of essentially a who’s who in the world of magic.
              • The Magic Castle opened its doors on January 2, 1963 as the home of the Academy of Magical Arts, Inc. The Magic Castle has continued to be a beloved celebrity hangout since it's inauguration. In the 1960s, hollywood legend Cary Grant, who first suggested a no-photo policy, used to welcome members at the door. Johnny Carson performed tricks there in the 1970s, and even donated a backdrop from The Tonight Show, which still sits behind one of the bars. Steve Martin has performed there too, as hasJason Alexander from Seinfeld. Other famous members include Jimmy Kimmel, Nicolas Cage, Dave Navarro, and Shia LeBeouf. Ryan Gosling has been known to drop in on occasion. When Katy Perry rented out the entire place for her costume-themed birthday party, the guest list included Skrillex, John Mayer, Ellie Goulding, and Kristen Stewart. Johnny Depp is a regular. He always requests one specific close-up magician for a private set in the Houdini Séance Room, displaying Houdini’s own walnut magic wand, handcuffs, and straitjacket.
              • Biruitorul --- own up to your blunder regarding your demeaning, ignorant and inflammatory remarks about The Magic Castle, an American hallmark and the most prestigious institution in its specialized field. Cease from perpetuating your misplaced and off-topic banter on the nomination for an article on me, Joey Bond, in Wikipedia. You are eternalizing a war-zone by redundant commentary.
              • Having said that, I find that your "contribution" is misplaced and is an off-topic banter on the nomination of the article on me, Joey Bond, in Wikipedia. I know that your username Biruitorul means Victorious; however winning has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia. JOEYJEOBOND (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm glad you brought up the Beatles, because this highlights the article's fatal shortcomings. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of top-notch sources about the Beatles - books, articles, and so forth. These may not cover every single aspect of the Beatles, in which case it may be appropriate to turn to a more marginal source like a press release. Well, in the case of "Joey Bond", everything is marginalia, everything you've brought to the table is biographical ephemera. There isn't a single objective source that discusses him in any measurable depth. A press release, a few search results and a handful of other scraps: under no reasonable interpretation of WP:BASIC do these add up to "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". The level of coverage simply does not justify an article.
        • And you know what else doesn't justify an article? The man's achievements. Working as a magician doesn't by itself make you worthy of an encyclopedia article. Neither does publishing a DVD or a book, or even hosting a television series - for which claim we don't even have a citation, and which we can therefore disregard. Sure, he's had, I suppose, an interesting career, but that's not the standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is, in entertainers' case, "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.... a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following.... unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" - and all backed up by "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The standards are reasonably high, and there just isn't any indication the subject meets them. - Biruitorul Talk 01:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears sufficiently notable. I would suggest, moreover, that adding scads of "cn" tags makes the tagger appear foolish more often than not in such a case as this. The gold standard I often use is the NYT [7] (including "Things You Didn't Want to Know: I like to think that practicing my tai chi is my apple a day, Mr. Bond confides.") Collect (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • While being covered by the NYT is often indicative of notability, not every single person mentioned by that newspaper in its 164-year history is notable. Depth of coverage matters, and the coverage here is simply not quotable in an encyclopedic biography. (If you think I'm wrong, I would be interested in seeing how you manage to quote this piece.)
    • As for the cn tags: they are fairly appropriate in number, and they serve to underscore that not only is the cited material in the article of atrocious quality, consisting as it does of scraps of biographical ephemera, but that in fact much of the text isn't supported by any kind of source, reliable or not. - Biruitorul Talk 03:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Biruitorul Thank you again for your comments which I do appreciate. Let's agree to disagree and let some wise admin decide our differences without further disrupting scarce editorial resources. Meanwhile, I don't like to, but I'm afraid I have to mention that today you inserted 11 CNs in one fell swoop with one general explanation; that they are all unreliable and improperly cited is implausible. You added a {{cn}} to the Wikilink Mentalist (which is a mistake I imagine).
      • You have mentioned your interpretation of the criteria you believe in for notability/verifiability several times, so I do understand your point of view. Again, I respectfully disagree on certain aspects of your interpretation of verifiable accuracy and citing reliable sources. My understanding of these important principles as pertaining to the article in question, is that, in certain instances, they have simply been met here, some good, others to be improved upon. And other criteria has also been met following WP:Policy. In my view, seen from a broader perspective, verifiable accuracy and reliable sources should also consider Creative professionals, WP:Alternatives to deletion (ATD) which is WP:Policy, WP:Before and actually quite a few others, Wikipedia:No firm rules notwithstanding.
      • FYI, I am culling Canadian and US newspaper interviews with Mr. Bond so many more sources will be forthcoming ...hard to catch one's breath these days—I should take up Bond's Tai Chi lessons... Merci pour votre patience! Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, forgot one. Wikipedia:You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time, to wit: "Just don't argue that a change should be made or prevented just because the rule says so, because that's not the nature of rules. Because the rule says so is not a valid argument for doing something. Focus on improvements, not rules." --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am for now AGFing on that "more sources to follow" claim, although everything in the article as it is now screams "promotional" and "non-encyclopedic". As we stand, no sufficient coverage of this subject in independent outlets (a requirement, not an option) was provided, much of the info is unsourced (but is of the kind that would be accessible to Mr. Bond and other people doing his PR), and the sources that were cited can only stay if they can be said to round a text that is otherwise backed by secondary sources (see WP:PSTS). And no, a supposed one-time homage by Obama doesn't establish notability; neither does a passing mention in a newspaper of record. Instead of wasting the community's time with canvassing and echo-chamber debates such as the above, you could provide in the article itself the sources that establish why Mr. Bond is worth an encyclopedic entry, not just how oh-so-cool he is. As for the toxic insinuations against Biruitorul: he is doing the commendable job of acting as a filter for articles that may not meet wikipedia requirements, and he should't have to stand for this nonsense. If you wonder why and how he got to this pretty article of yours, it is probably the same way I did: by checking out the new articles on Romanian topics, filtered by the community bots. Dahn (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The New York Times gave this PBS series a category Rating 10 ; how is this not notable? ...good faith intended. ...working hard to improve the article. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that were true, it might make the series notable, not necessarily the series creator. But get this: it is not true. Reading the NYT source which is also the source for the citation in the article, we note that the NYT was rating three fitness shows in one article. Mr Bond's Tai Chi Interwave is the last one on that list; it does not "get a Rating 10", but the following:

        "Degree of Fun and Inspiration: Rating 2. Tai chi is a relaxing way to achieve fitness, but this show is a bit too relaxing. Degree of Diffculty [sic]: Rating 2, unless you count keeping a straight face. Likelihood of Sticking to This Program: Rating 10, if you seek serenity and control over your physical being; 0, if you're the kind of (shallow, frivolous, narcissistic) person who seeks nothing more than thin thighs in 30 days."

        So you see, it is not only a passing mention from 1996. It is a passing mention to ridicule Mr Bond. As we speak, the article you are "improving" is not just poorly sourced and evidently puffy, it is misleading. As stated, I am still AGFing -- but not for long, unless things change in some significant way. Dahn (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hello Dahn. Perhaps the New York Times quote could be a little clearer. Thus, I corrected the text to quote the New York Times text verbatim, to wit: "Likelihood of Sticking to This Program: Rating 10, if you seek serenity and control over your physical being". It perhaps flows less well than "In 1996, Andrea Higbie of The New York Times gave a rating of 10 for ones' likelihood of sticking to this Program, 'if you seek serenity and control over your physical being'." I prefer the later, but the verbatim transcipt is adequate I imagine, and unobjectionable I would think. Your thoughts? Merci pour ce bon conseil. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, actually it is quite objectionable. The NYT piece is about videos for "getting in shape". It gave him a rating of 10 for something that has nothing to do with fitness, and a zero rating for something that the product was advertising -- namely, to keep one fit. In other words, it said: "look, you're quite good at that inner peace thing, but people should not buy your video if they actually want fitness results". It basically spells it out for you: if you want to have muscular thighs in 30 days, don't bother with Mr Bond. It clearly mocks him throughout, and it also clearly gives him failing grades in other criteria considered by the author. So either quote the piece in full, and show what the author meant, or let it float away as something that can only embarrass the subject of the article. And I will let reviewers of this debate assess what it means for the topic that its only mention in mainstream media we have so far is a brief fragment of mockery. Dahn (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hello everyone! There have now been 77 edits completed in the last 7 days. I took the time and pleasure to do 26 edits today including translation, from my native French, of several Canadian newspapers. I believe the results have been fruitful on resolving issues of 'citation needed' using good sources; other progress has been made as well. Kindly pass by Joey Bond and share you thoughts for improvement, if you wish. Many thanks! Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you have added is mostly (entirely?) from interviews in local alternative newspapers and blogs, and only covers some of the citations needed relating to Mr Bond's life. Such sources would be marginally acceptable were Bond's career otherwise noted and notable in more relevant secondary sources -- the "multiple and reputable ones" repeatedly mentioned above. Dahn (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...Dahn ...many more good sources will be forthcoming, including several from major newspapers, such as La Presse, Canada's largest French language paper and the legendary Montreal Gazette, founded in 1778. Voir magazine (from last night's harvest) is an iconic, extremely well respected Québec magazine, similar to Mahattan's Village Voice in context; it's often quoted and used for Québec cultural scene references in the French Huffington Post and elsewhere. Virus magazine was, as you say, an alternative newspaper ...had some family emergency—small health problems today to attend to but tomorrow I can forge ahead; lots coming... Voila pour l'instant. Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nonsense. Voir is also an alternative newspaper, as our entry on it clearly states. In a google search, La Presse and Montreal Gazette appear to have absolutely no entry on Joey Bond. Dahn (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • discernment and judgement, not nonsense at all. ...Montreal Gazette did several articles and interviews with Bond before 1990; Montreal Daily News in the late eighties. I never thought of our beloved Voir magazine as alternative, but... La Presse has good stuff on Joey Bond; you have to subscribe on the French subscription page ("abonnement"). ...nothing concealed that will not be revealed ...as above, so below, as within, so without... --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:LavaBaron Wikipedia:Notability (paragraph 2) specifically instructs that a topic can also be considered notable, even failing the GNG --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean this?: "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Dahn (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There doesn't seem to be enough debating grounded in policy. Too many keep votes look like WP:ILIKEIT while some deletes look like WP:JNN. Relisting to get a better consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to follow this discussion, but I found little that dealt with his notability. I don't see the coverage to show he's a notable entertainer, either as a magician or TV personality. I also don't think he meets the notability criteria for either authors or martial artists. The biggest problem I see is that there doesn't seem to be much significant, independent coverage from reliable sources. I see a lot of promotional material and passing mentions or links to his show, but none of that shows he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On notability and GNG grounds. I was sure he did not meet either WP:GNG or the WP:MANOTE for martial artists. I was less sure about WP:ENTERTAINER but am now convinced the subject doesn't.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The adequate mentions in reliable sources that were being advertised above never materialized, and probably don't exist. Does not meet GNG or any notability guideline in any relevant field. Dahn (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG & per Collect. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 05:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As stated by User:Ritchie333 in his reason for Relisting comment, I am following his recommendation of adhering to debate grounded in Policy. I have also included a section on my Sources, as many policies relate thereto. In general, I will state my reasons why Wikipedia Policy supports the Joey Bond article as being noteworthy, verifiable, neutral, copyright-secured, and with room for expansion. I'll try to show how the Policy has been respected in each instance, that the accuracy of my facts are verifiable and reliable sources have been well-formatted and appropriately cited. The sources used thus far include mainstream newspapers (New York Times, Montreal Gazette, La Presse, etc), alternative papers, online citations, knowledge gleaned from posters, record jackets, DVD covers, PBS Press releases (including statements from PBS Vice-President), and others.
--SOURCES: (When needed, all sources have been translated by me, from my native French to my native English)
The following citation sources presently exist in the article:
Virus Montreal, Voir magazine, Janson Media Pressroom (online), Google Books, with ISBN references, The Tampa Tribune, The New York Times, Libraries throughout North America carrying the 8-year PBS Joey Bond video series DVD, Highbeam online database research,Online commentary by Gustavo Sagastume (Vice President of PBS), Mr. Bond's album jackets, posters, book covers...
The following citation sources will appear within the next 2 or 3 days:
(Translation will be rendered, from my native French into my native English, of several Canadian newspapers). Montreal Gazette, founded 1778, who did several articles and interviews with Bond, Montreal Daily News, La Presse (Canadian newspaper), North America's largest French language paper, Le Devoir, and many others as time permits.
--POLICY:
Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. The section below mentions some of the sources I culled, which I believe meet Wikipedia's important standards of Verifiabilty as outlined in WP:Verifiability and WP:What counts as a reliable source. Thus, you will find I have used Magazines, Journals, Mainstream newspapers as so on as prescribed.
- As per WP:BASIC. 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. I believe this condition and all its subsections and ramifications have has been satisfied based on the following information...
- As per WP:Martial arts/Notability. Again, reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Bond is verifiably known for his nationally syndicated, PBS series, entitled Tai Chi Innerwave with Joey Bond, on the PBS Network from 1994-2002; it is distributed to all markets worldwide (television, DVD, VOD, non-theatric, and new media). This shows a degree of notability, visibility and celebrity few martial artists have achieved, and make the article notable in the Martial arts category as well.
- As per WP:Neutral point of view. As required, I have carefully and critically analyzed a variety of reliable sources and attempted to convey the gleaned information fairly, proportionately, without editorial bias. I tried to describe disputes, but not engage in them. I believe this policy has been fulfilled in the article in question.
- Note WP:Before nominating: checks and alternatives. I believe this Policy HAS NOT been fulfilled. Especially as concerns:
--Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted; or "lend a hand instead of complaining"
--Other checks - a great many
--Read and understand these policies and guidelines - specifically, WP:Reasons for deletion, such as Copyright violations, Vandalism, unsuitable content, none of which have been dealt with, but should have been before nomination for deletion. So this condition has not been satisfied.
- As per WP:Notability. The subject of the article has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, such as a nationally syndicated PBS television series running 8 consecutive years. This is not outside the scope of Wikipedia. It contains reliable independent sources to gauge this attention; the topic should have its own article; in fact, it is quite overdue!
- As per Wikipedia:Five_pillars. As well, I have carefully respected WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, WP:What Wikipedia is not, and WP:Biographies of living persons. I believe all these policies have been followed as far as is humanly possible within the small amount of time given us on this our mortal orb.
- As per WP:Self-published sources have been avoided and are not present in the article, as required. Even though self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, I have used no personal web pages, nor claims from self-proclaimed expert (usually referred to facetiously as a legend in one's own mind).
- As per No original research, in particular Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. My research is based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. My secondary sources provide my own thinking based on primary sources. Because it is easy to misuse them, I have exercised care in my primary sources; they have been reputably published and, according to policy, may be used in Wikipedia. This policy has been thoroughly respected.
Finally, I believe that all WP:Policies and guidelines have been respected. I have chosen a traditionalist, more conventional approach to respecting Wikipedia Policy. Several other WP policies exist which represent alternative yet permissible Wikipedia viewpoints, such as No firm rules, and You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_Can%27t_Follow_All_The_Rules,_All_The_Time) (N.B. WP broken link due to %27 interpolation). My own use of Policy is, by design, based on the most basic tenets of Wikipedia rules and guidelines.
I have tried to make my comments here logical and reasonable. I have of course avoided any basis of revenge or hostility, which are not at all in my nature. A final policy is particularly important to me: Assume good faith. Thank you. In view of the large area which needed discussion, I hope that reading my comments has not been onerous or disruptive; it needed to be said. If need be, I will be happy to elaborate further and provide more qualitative and quantitative content.
PS. In view of the discussion above, a remark about the New York Times review might prove useful. Our highest aspirations are health and serenity. The New York Times says that the Joey Bond PBS achieves this and has given the highest rating in this category, stating "Rating 10, if you seek serenity and control over your physical being". These objectives are obviously much of the purpose of the series; thus the NYT article has understood, at least in part, and is noteworthy. It also said that if you are looking for a quick weight loss program and "...nothing more than thin thighs in 30 days", than the rating is zero, which is also appropriate; Tai Chi does not pretend to be about weight loss. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that WP:GNG has been passed through the sources given as per Collect and Robert McClennon.That a source is in some part critical of the subject is good as that demonstrates its independence.Atlantic306 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope the closing admin remembers to note the canvassing above, the suspicious entrenchment of very focused recent accounts, and the complete lack of independent RSes as required by wikipedia. The NYT piece, as I have shown, is misquoted -- it is casual mention and a bad review, ridiculing Mr Bond -- and theother sources, though repeatedly invoked and promised, are not to be found in the article (the editor who invokes them has wasted days upon days of writing gibberish here, on this page, but has so far failed to provide an actual citation from said RSes). This discussion, in the absence of any content and changes to the article that would address the relevant concerns, is an outrageous waste of our time, lawyering around what looks like an attempt to promote Mr Bond at all cost. Dahn (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dahn You have left no less than NINE comments in this discussion so far! Your own present talk page shows 38 communications between you and Biruitorul, the author of this AfD. And yet everyone else is wasting time, colluding, lawyering, promoting...now that's gibberish...
Contrary to your assertion about 'no changes addressing the concerns', over 100 edits are shown in the article's history since this discussion began, so 100 edits all ignore the issues? --Jbeaton5 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you are referring to me I have not been canvassed or canvassing, and have made 2000 edits .Also a number of the contributors to this discussion on both sides of the argument are very experienced like yourself. .Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe that WP:GNG has been passed through the sources given as per Robert McClennon, Collect, Natalie Desautels, Corinne and Checkingfax.
I have taken time to carefully read over the Joey Bond article and will report my findings in support of my Keep suggestion. I agree with most points made by Natalie.Desautels above because, in general, the subject proves to be noteworthy, sources are verifiable, and the author's point of view is neutral. The mainstream newspapers cited seem to be all in order and well-cited, and primary sources are used for facts only, as recommended by No original research, in particular Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Information has been reported properly in line with a WP:Neutral point of view and the article shows no editorial bias. Indeed, the information comes from a variety of reliable sources and is presented carefully and fairly.
I have no problem at all with the WP:Notability. Mr. Bond's PBS television series became nationally syndicated and ran for 8 consecutive years, giving Mr. Bond significant attention by the world at large, his other accomplishments notwithstanding. The article contains independent sources proving this, and apparently more sources are in the works. Being a proven diplomed member of Houdini's legendary hangout, Hollywood's Magic Castle, of course adds to the notability earned by the PBS series, among other accomplishments.
Going through the list of 14 WP:Reasons for deletion, I found no applicable ruling and no logical reason to consider deletion of this article.
I also made my way through the 9 sections of WP:What Wikipedia is not, and could not find any policies that suggest this article is not fit for publication in Wikipedia. Based on my finding of noteworthiness, reliability of sources that are verifiable and the author's neutral point, I conclude that Mr. Bond should have his own Wikipedia article. Jbeaton5 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hello Everyone, I had a chance to do about 35 more edits, bringing the total to 478 edits by 10 editors, in order to radically improve the Joey Bond article. So, I expanded, referenced, tweaked and refined (I hope) the following sections as well as the lead:
-‘Early studies and teaching’ using source material and references from mainstream newspaper The Montreal Gazette
-‘Magician and writer’ using source material and references from National radio CBC/Radio-Canada 'Le Téléjournal"
-'Tai Chi Innerwave with Joey Bond (PBS series)' section using source material and references from alternative paper Voir magazine and mainstream newspaper La Presse (Canadian newspaper) . Hope it pleases. best wishes, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as promotional. Wee I to encounter this without the benefit of the arguments above, I would probably have tagged it as G11. The addition of photographs of diplomas and similar wildly inappropriate material shows the intent, and the result is unacceptable. The addition of album covers of multiple albums is similarly inappropriate, free license or not. Release under a free license, is a very good thing to do for necessary photographs of important subjects, but in this case just makes them available for promotion. Advertising is of course is a permitted use of material with a free license, but not use on WP. Whether an adequate article could be written I do not know, but it acertainly would need to be started over, preferably in draft space. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Even clear promotionalism no matter how great the notability is a reason for deletion. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I appreciate your input and have deleted images which may be construed as promotional, albeit unintentionally so—to wit; CD cover and insert, photograph, PBS series VHS cover, diploma certification, magic show poster, and book cover. ... references were adjusted as needed. Feel free to leave suggestions for improvement on my talk page, if you wish. Many thanks; much appreciated. Merci. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 12:01, 3 February 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/Joey_Bond&oldid=1137952274"