Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Copley


 * 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   delete. As is customary, less weight has been given to the comments of brand new accounts or those who appear to have shown up only to participate in this debate. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Copley

 * – ( View AfD View log )

At first glance, there looks to be ample references (14). But, on closer inspection, the substantial sources are from himself (for example the article in http://oddstruments.com is based on an article in his http://www.aahalearning.com that he wrote). The person does seem to have a reasonable degree of verifiable professional success, and family members who are notable. But, I don't see substantial coverage of the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. Rob (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I AGREE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.117.245.225 (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Hello Rob, thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for your comments. It is my belief that my first article about Dr Bruce Copley is no ordinary listing because the noteworthy and verifiable achievements span a 40 year period in the fields of sport(tennis), medicine, science, education, research, music and international business consulting. As a newcomer to the Wikipedia team (somewhat overwhelmed by the complex rules and policies) and someone who wants to actively make a significant contribution to the stated aims and objectives of this extraordinary source of information, I do have many questions which I hope you can help me with. Re the issue with multiple, reliable and verifiable sources: 1. Dr Copley has had significant collaborations with high profile people and associations listed on Wikipedia such as the International Tennis Federation, Prof Philip Tobias,  Amy Biehl Foundation, Common Purpose,  Dr Peter Block, Dr Leo Buscaglia, South African Broadcasting Corporation(SABC), South African Tennis Federation and many more. On his website there are quotes from many of these people and instances, and sometimes videos and photos showing their participation, as well as reprints from articles. Does this not constitute reliable and verifiable and independent proof, even though this material is displayed on Dr Copley's website? 2. If links to this material are not acceptable because they are hosted on Dr Copley's website, what kind of links would be acceptable? Would reference to blog entries, direct correspondence (letters and emails), citings in books, magazines, interviews be ok? 3. Besides the validity of the 2 out of the 14 links which are questioned, are the other links acceptable? 4. Dr Copley says that he can provide me with many more appropriate sources than the 14 links currently in the article. Would you advise me to do this? ChrisStefan (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: the following was left on my talk page, and I'm copying it here:  --Rob (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Photos or videos showing an association really don't count. Quotes only count if published in a 3rd party source.  As far as reprints go, if he was covered in a reliable 3rd party source, that's reprinted on his site, you could provide a citation, and include a convenience link to his site.  However, it must still be possible for people to obtain a copy (online or offline) without relying on Copley himself.  I would also point out, you do have some reliable sources, but they're not really about Bruce Copley.  Vanity Fair is the kind of reliable source you need.  However, there is nothing in Vanity Fair that mentions Bruce Copley.  Also, mere "associations" typically don't confer notability.  So, even if the Vanity Fair article had a passing mention of Bruce Copley (which it does not), that wouldn't be enough.  An article in Vanity Fair that is principally about Bruce Copley would help establish notability.  As for getting more source from Bruce Copley:  we actually discourage people, and those close to them, promoting themselves on Wikipedia.  It seems you and Bruce Copley are treating this as a C.V. or resume, to convince an employer he's qualified.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that writes about people *after* others have written about them.  You've shown evidence that Copley may deserve to be written about independently, but have not shown that happening.  You and Bruce Copley should understand, Wikipedia articles aren't made by, or made for, or in consultation with the subjects.  If the article is kept, he'll have no say whatsoever in what goes in it, and may regret it existed.  Finally, a reason you're having trouble understanding the requirements of an article, is jumped into Wikipedia making a new article about someone close to you.  Editors should start editing various articles, and learn how things work.  If you want to pop in to make a fiend's article, you'll find little success.  Sorry.  You're welcome very much to be here, and to contribute, but you'll find no success in promoting somebody you know. --Rob (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I am addressing these concerns and will respond soon.ChrisStefan (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to criticisms:

I have extensively edited the content of the article and have included links to multiple verifiable, reliable and independent sources.

I removed the contentious link to Dr Copley's discovery of Fire in the Didgeridoo and replaced it with a reliable, verifiable and independent reference, because of the criticism that the source used isn't reliable since it contains content that was supplied by Dr Copley himself and is present on his own website. However, even though it is no longer really necessary, I want to refer you to the Wikipedia guide about reliable sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources:
 * Issue: Substantial source is attributable to Dr Copley himself:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published by experts in the field, so long as:

 the material is not unduly self-serving; The information in this source pertains almost exclusively to the discovery of fire in the didgeridoo and it would seem strange if Dr Copley was not at least mentioned as the person who discovered this it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); No such claims are made here it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; No such claims are made here there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; There can be no reasonable doubt about this claim even though it is extraordinary the article is not based primarily on such sources. This is just one of numerous sources on which Dr Copley's article is based. 

<ul> <li>Issue: Multiple independent verifiable and reliable sources: The following sources are undeniably reliable, independent and verifiable and specifically confirms Dr Copley's notability:
 * 1) 2 - Rhodes Alumni Accolades,
 * 2) 4 - Dr Copley's PhD,
 * 3) 5 - Citation in Phillip Tobias's book Into the Past,
 * 4) 7 - The New Zealand Journal of Sports Medicine,
 * 5) 8 - International Tennis Federation research articles,
 * 9, 10 - International Biographical Publications,
 * 1) 11 - Manser's book Circus,
 * 2) 12 - South African Journal of Natural Science,
 * 3) 13 - British Association Medal Winners;
 * 4) 14 - International Who's who in Tennis;
 * 5) 15 - Dr Copley's book Scientific Tennis,
 * 6) 17 - Contributions to Somatotyping work with colleagues,
 * 7) 19 - Free Spirit SABC TV Series about Didgeridoo,
 * 8) 20 - report on Official Sony World Cup Soccer website,
 * 9) 23 - Rainbow Rhythm SABC TV series,
 * 10) 24 - SKF Sweden Magazine Article,
 * 11) 25 - Dr Edwin Hawthorne: Bruce Copley on Holistic Leadership,
 * 12) 26 - Amy Biehl Foundation and Dr Copley,
 * 13) 27 - Symphonia created video of Two day event with Dr Peter Block and Dr Copley,
 * 14) 28 - African Speakers Bureau Listing,
 * 15) 30 - Sun Valley Community School Project

The reference (#18) to the reprint on Dr Copley's website, from the Australian Didgeridoo & Co Magazine, meets the criteria of independent verifiability and reliability. If people want to see the article they don't need to get this from Dr Copley's website but are free to write to this magazine directly.</li>

<li>Issue: Associations with notable people and instances: Dr Copley isn't simply associated with these instances and persons, he has had significant verifiable collaboration with them in his professional capacity. Nobody has to take Dr Copley's word for this, or the videos, quotes or other source material on his website - independent references confirming this have now been supplied. It is also possible to verify all this by contacting these people themselves - offline or online.</li>

<li>Issue: Discouraging people who know each other from writing about each other: I understand the need for objectivity since this is an encyclopedia. But 'discourage' doesn't mean 'disallow'. And in this case, 'knowing my subject' simply means 'knowing what he does'. You cannot write about someone if you know nothing about what that person does - whatever your sources may be. I believe my association with Dr Copley over the last 4 years actually qualifies me for writing about what he does, more than it disqualifies me. Furthermore this criticism is much more applicable to persons who write about themselves, if you look in the Wikipedia guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects#Can_I_start_an_article_about_myself_or_my_company. There is no bias in my report about Dr Copley - these are all verifiable facts. If anybody can prove that these facts are made up or skewed, then there might be an argument about my ineligibility to write this. I don't think it is enough, or even a pertinent argument, to point out that I know Dr Copley and his work well and therefore 'shouldn't' be the one collating this information about him. Quite the converse, I would say.</li>

<li>Issue: Treating this as a CV or resume: I am not attempting to 'promote' Dr Copley or find employment for him, instead I am trying to 'inform' the community of this notable person. The community would be worse off if this information is not collated here. Dr Copley deserves a Wikipedia entry and people deserve to be notified of him. His achievements are notable, different and sustained over a long period of time and obviously qualifies him as a notable personage. The issue here is not notability, but a technical issue concerning the existence of third-party sources. This I have now addressed by adding multiple references to such reliable independent sources. I as well as the subject of the article are fully aware that we do not own the article and that 'negative' information might be published over which we have no control. I won't be the one to try and prevent the addition of negative content as long as it is verifiable and from a reliable source.</li> </ul> ChrisStefan (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC) <ul><li>
 * Delete. Oh dear. Lots of special pleading already. Well, I guess I'll jump in here. The nom's points are all basically correct: (1) There's no WP:RS – Youtube and web flotsam are not acceptable sources, (2) the points argued above by ChrisStefan do not go toward notability, e.g. his PhD diploma is nothing more than WP:EXISTENCE and does not make him notable, (3) the article tries to stitch together lots of piecemeal items to hopefully qualify him collectively for notable status (he has a PhD, he did circus research, he has notable relatives, he showed a musical instruments can catch on fire, etc.) Note again, what the article calls "international recognition" (Dr Copley's feats with the Australian Didgeridoo have received international recognition) sources to the subject's own website, which re-sources an extremely obscure magazine. I've made a good-faith attempt to find sources, but the best I could see were some trivial mentions, e.g. "Bruce Copley, who has been teaching pupils to play the vuvuzela, advised using baby oil to reduce friction" was the sum-total of mention in a Sunday Times article. Sorry, but this fellow is a country mile from notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Question What are the top two or three sources, and how do they constitute substantial, independent, and reliable coverage?  --Rob (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The mass of primary sources, unverifiable and likely-trivial sources, and obvious vanity scams such as the International Biographical Centre cluttering the reference list make it impossible to determine whether there is any real notability here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

<ul> <li> @ Rob's Question: These top sources meet the criteria and are immediately verifiable: British Association Medal: ITF Publications SKF Sweden Article Sony website Amy Biehl Foundation Full Circle Magazine The Australian Didgeridoo, Free Spirit, Series 8, Episode 5, SABC 3 national broadcast, March 2006, Produced by Shoot the Breeze Productions. We contacted the SABC and they gave us an electronic listing number which can be used to request this material from them: OP30-86587 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStefan (talk • contribs) 11:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC) @ Agricola44: <ol> <li>Your statement about YouTube is a lie and indicates either bias or ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources. However, such links must abide by various policies and guidelines. Linking to such sites is often discouraged due to misuse. Copyright is of particular concern. Reliability of the uploader and video must always be established if the link is used as a source ." The article uses 4 references to YouTube links, all of which do not have copyright issues: Discovery of Rainbow Vuvuzela - this link is informational and simply supportive of the other references for the Rainbow Vuvuzela, and can be removed if need be Symphonia and Peter Block Workshop - this video is uploaded by a reliable corporation and the content is incontestably reliable and shows Dr Copley working together with Dr Peter Block Recordings of Songs sung by Lauren Copley - these links are not videos but sound-recordings and if there is an authentic problem with the reason for their inclusion, then they can be removed from this article. </li> <li>A Ph.D is one of the highest tertiary qualifications and could never be a diploma. Dr Copley's Ph.D IS notable at least for the reason that his supervisor is a very famous academic and scientist, who also referenced Dr Copley's own work in one of his books. </li> <li> The sources are not piecemeal but rather proof of achievements in many different and varied fields, something which very few other Wikipedia entries have. He didn't just study circus performers, he is credited with seminal research on them. This is the quote from Manser's book (should we include this in the article?) "Of Medical Interest: A study unique in the West and probably in the world is that of the morphology, physiology, etc of circus performers such as is being conducted by Dr Bruce Copley of Rhodes University, South Africa. - A.N. Manser: Circus". </li> <li> Apart from the reprint on Dr Copley's website there is reference to Dr Copley's activities with the Didgeridoo in other international publications such as the SKF Sweden article. </li> <li> You accuse Dr Copley of trivial mention in a source which we did not even reference ourselves - please show how this constitutes valid criticism? </li> </ol>
 * Comment. You can argue as strenuously as you like that a PhD and some Youtube videos etc make one notable, but that's a losing proposition. As David said, reliable secondary sources are needed (see WP:RS). If such cannot be found (I could only find the trivial one mentioned above), this article is sure to be deleted. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC).


 * The PhD done under a world-renowned expert, and the YouTube videos proving close professional association with notable personages contribute to proof of notability and it is strange that you do not acknowledge this. I would be hesitant to accept an opinion on this by someone who thinks a PhD is a diploma and who makes absolutely certain statements about the invalidity of YouTube videos as valid sources, said statements turning out to be false.  I have already listed many secondary independent sources confirming Dr Copley's notability, no need to do your own research and to report it as containing 'trivial mention' (which is highly debatable by the way). You have also not responded to the other comments raised in response to your criticisms.ChrisStefan (talk)


 * WP:NOTINHERITED. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do you mention this? Here is a quote from your reference: Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits. Are you saying Dr Copley is claiming notability solely by association with family members?ChrisStefan (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I mention it because only a couple of lines up you wrote "close professional association with notable personages contribute to proof of notability", a clear example of the "argument to avoid" that NOTINHERITED talks about. But I am tired of the filibustering here, so I am going to stop responding. My delete opinion stands. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at your reference closely. Unless I am mistaken somehow, I cannot see that it specifies that this is a clear example of what to avoid.  In addition I read the following at the top of the reference: "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section Just a policy or guideline below)." I want to point out that you have not responded to all my requests below for you to verify your earlier blanket criticisms.  Let me also respectfully remind you that your delete opinion is useless without justification since this is not a vote.

ChrisStefan (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, it you who does not understand how this process works. The burden of proof lies with those who would keep this article to demonstrate notability through sources, not with David or anyone else to respond to the minutiae of your prolix pleading. The "sources" as they currently exist are entirely inadequate, as are your arguments for notability e.g. "videos proving close professional association with notable personages contribute to proof of notability". Sorry, but not. Policies with respect to a case like this are very clear. Unless you stop pleading and find real sources, you're going to be very disappointed with the outcome of this process. Like David, I will now stop responding and will observe from the sideline as this discussion runs its course. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC).


 * With equal respect, I point out to you that you are once again mistaken - the burden of proof obviously ALSO lies with every person involved in this discussion, to be able to backup the statements they make. My 'prolix pleading' consists of addressing the criticisms as completely as possible, one by one, and requiring justification from you for them if need be - which you and the other users advocating deletion have mostly failed to supply.  If you say things like "numerous unverifiable sources" or "most of the sources are primary" and I counter with something like "this is not true, here are the sources which are verifiable and independent, please show how YOUR STATEMENT is true by listing those sources" then the burden of proof lies WITH YOU if you want your statements to carry weight in this discussion.  As I have already shown in detail, we have supplied numerous real verifiable and independent sources which incontestably verifies the notable activities stated in the article.  I have also shown that the videos in this instance are acceptable sources according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Even without the videos there are enough independent verifiable sources to justify inclusion of this article.08:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStefan (talk • contribs)

@ David Eppstein: Please identify the 'mass' of primary sources used, by which I assume you mean sources created by the subject himself, I don't agree that there are numerous unverifiable sources - as shown there are instead numerous verifiable ones. Please define 'trivial' sources, as I understand it, if sources are reliable, verifiable and relevant then they should be adequate. Thank you for making us aware that the biographical sources are questionable, we agree and have removed them from the article. </li> </ul>ChrisStefan (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * By "primary sources" I mean: papers published by Copley, lists of papers published by Copley, web sites controlled by Copley or by his organization, alumni newsletter entries that appear to have been written by Copley and published as-is by the newsletter, etc. Which is to say, most of the sources. We need secondary sources, things written by other people, not things written by the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Dr Copley's PhD, tennis book and list of publications are references to statements that he has made significant contributions in that field. The content of the alumni entry is not the issue at all, the intent there is to proof that Dr Copley is a Rhodes alumnus - if you care to read the article properly.  There is only one website 'controlled' by Dr Copley which is his own.  One or two sites have independently published something written by Dr Copley, or interviews with Dr Copley which by their nature are reports of what was said by Dr Copley - nothing sinister in that.  Please prove your extraordinary claim that 'most' of the sources are sources controlled by Dr Copley or are publishing things written by Dr Copley, by listing these sources one by one.ChrisStefan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

While it is important to verify primary sources, it is my opinion that the unique contribution Dr. Copley has made over 40 years are worth knowing about.The golden thread that links all his various achievements, is the one of being a leader in the field of holistic education.Dr. Copley's personal academic achievements laid the foundation for a career as an educator and leader that adds to society as a whole.His unique contribution is emphasized by the references to various fields, which is an affirmation of the impact of his work on a larger scale. ````Lynette Steele — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynette Steele (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)  — Lynette Steele (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * When somebody creates a brand new account, for the sole purpose of bolstering one side in a dispute, and uses the thinking/terminology/attitude of the only other user with the same position, it's obvious that's a sock puppet, which may be blocked by an admin, if the behaviour continues.     --Rob (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Wikipedia was an open forum in which anybody is welcome to air their views, even unregistered or first-time users, and I would advise you to be careful with probably unfounded allegations. On your talk page I said the following: "(I) would very much like your and other's opinions on whether the guidelines have been met and if not, how to do so." Since this is process is not a vote but a consideration of arguments, and since the objective here is to create an article that complies with Wikipedia policies, I myself have no fear of whomever decides to share their thoughts, whatever they may be.ChrisStefan (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:DUCK. Would you not admit that the one and only edit of a brand-new account that happens to make a detailed defense of the subject is suspicious? Even your own account is basically devoted to the special purpose of managing this particular article. These are the sorts of facts that further a perception of WP:COI. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC).


 * It is not suspicious given that the creator as well as the subject of the article are both aware that only arguments and not testimonials are what count during this process. I would in fact call it "paranoia" on your part.  As for my own account, I can only restate my intention to contribute to this amazing communal effort towards cataloging significant information.  The statements in this, my first article, are factual with verifiable sources.  This is what this person did and is doing, this is who he collaborated with, this is what people say about him.  And, are you seriously accusing all newcomers involved with only one article, of being 'suspicious'? ChrisStefan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete this puffery as there is no policy reason to keep it. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your contribution. From Puffery: "Puffery as a legal term refers to promotional statements and claims that express subjective rather than objective views, such that no reasonable person would take them literally".  Every statement in this article (achievements, activities, associations etc.) is objective, factual and verifiable and is meant to be taken literally. Please show instances where this is not the case in order to backup your claim.ChrisStefan (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead makes a great example of puffery, especially "He is the founder of the company AAHA Learning[1] whose stated aim is to re-ignite people's passion for learning through the application of holistic principles and practices". The one citation provided in the lead is to aahalearning.com, controlled by the person it promotes.  Saying somebody re-ignites passion is not an example of objectivity.   --Rob (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not state that the company re-ignites people's passion for learning etc. I write that it is the stated aim of the company to reignite people's passion for learning, and I provide a link to the company pages so people can verify for themselves that this is the aim of the company.  I make no mention about my own belief whether that aim is truthful or not.  So it is a totally objective, verifiable statement.  It is an extraordinary and notable aim, but why is it 'puffery'?  Also, from WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..."  There are references mentioned elsewhere in the article (ex. 24, 27) in which people attest relating to the truth of this aim as experienced by themselves.  Once again, in these cases we do not say that this is a fact, only that other people are reporting this to be true for themselves.ChrisStefan (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of creating an article that impeccably satisfies Wikipedia's policies, I am inviting everyone who advocates deletion of this article to please point out those links in the article which are acceptable to you according to the requirements of notability, reliability, verifiability, independence and relevance. All I want is the number of the reference, then I will check the remaining references and see what can be done about them. If you think the article should be deleted please read the "Alternatives to Deletion" policy from WP:DEL where the following is stated: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."ChrisStefan (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * All quiet on the Western Front?ChrisStefan (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Zero. That's the number of references that establish notability.  Find a new source, or this will be deleted.  If the correct type of sources is not provided, there is nothing you can do to fix this.  Don't worry about editing the article or making more arguments until you get the proper sources.  If the required sources do not exist, then there's nothing else you can do to save the article.  You're correct that a fixable article should be fixed, not deleted.  But, without the proper sources, this isn't fixable.  --Rob (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The person who nominated this page for deletion says that not 1 of the 34 sources meets the Wikipedia requirements. In light of this statement and the responses of the other users who advocate deletion, I ask the community to seriously consider the possibility of personal bias. Do these persons own the necessary qualifications of being open and fair-minded? As shown clearly in the discussions above, the various criticisms have been addressed completely but not once did the critics admit that any of these responses were adequate and that their own arguments were incorrect when this was clearly shown to be so. Instead most of them opted out of further discussion without changing their stance about deletion or backing this up with valid argument. The reason for this must be that their minds have been made up from the start and no amount of reasonable argument is going to change it.

Once again: There are already numerous notable sources in this article meeting the Wikipedia criteria. For instance the ITF website, which is the website of the controlling body of International Tennis. The list of publications referenced are independently collated and published by the ITF. The list shows an amazing contribution of high-quality research articles by a tennis scientist that is unmatched by anybody else, ever. This achievement was a world first in the 70's and now, 31 years later, it still is! But this same website is also referenced as being a notable source for tennis players who have Wikipedia entries (just one example: John_Yuill_(tennis) whose claim to notability is that he won two doubles titles in his career. Such an achievement is considered notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, even though that feat has been achieved and surpassed by countless other people. Yet Rob and the others believe that the same ITF website is not considered a notable source for proof of an exceptional and unmatched contribution? The British Association Medal is one of the highest research awards which it is possible to award in South Africa. You are seriously saying this reference is not a notable source?  The SABC, who independently approached Dr Copley to feature him in their programmes because of his unique achievments, is not a notable source? The SKF Sweden magazine interview? Etc. etc.

The aim here is to create an article that meets the Wikipedia criteria. To this end I am currently filing a request for informal mediation with the Mediation Cabal before attempting a formal request from the Mediation Committee. Also, since I am not writing this article on my computer in the middle of the night underneath my bed with a blanket over my head and a hooded torch, there are many people in my life who are aware that I am writing this article. Some of them have already indicated that they might like to join this discussion to air their own views objectively. I am now openly inviting all of them, the entire Wikipedia community, friends, enemies, anybody else, to feel free to make objective pragmatic suggestions with the aim of creating a Wikipedia article that impeccably complies with the Wikipedia guidelines, and to also invite their acquaintances to do so. ChrisStefan (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Have now filed request for mediation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-02-05/Bruce_Copley ChrisStefan (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As an observer of the lengthy and charged discussions on this topic, My Questions for clarification as follows: 1. From the references cited it is clear that many meet the Wikipedia criteria of noteworthiness, reliablility, independence and verifiability...I would like to know why this is being ignored? 2. Would this not impact negatively on users of Wikipedia? 3. How credible is Wikipedia when in a discussion forum like this, deletion is being advocated by major role players whose comments and reasoning do not appear to be aligned with Wikipedia's clearly stated and admirable goals and listing criteria?Sfuma (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC) — Sfuma (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wow, how difficult should it be to record history. The sources provided undoubtedly proofs to be verifiable, defnitely notable, surely independent and reliable. If this individual needs to provide greater clarity for some scholars, I suggest that an extension be allowed to do so as it is important for several different disciplines to take note of these valuable contributions. I checked several sources and I am happy that it complies to the 4 thrusts mentioned above. Perhaps the various fields of expertise add to the confusion for some. Yours in developing knowledge and noteworthy contributions. EdwinHawthorn (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC) — EdwinHawthorn (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Sockpuppet investigations/ChrisStefan --Rob (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made the following response to this accusation:

"I am not creating multiple accounts for myself. I am using two computers at different locations to make posts as the user ChrisStefan only.  I notice that there is a tool called "checkuser" WP:CHECK which can be used to obtain technical evidence related to this charge, and I have no objection to this tool being used to clear up these allegations, in fact I welcome this.  It is a recorded fact that openly I invite people to make objective pragmatic contributions to the discussion - I have not asked anybody for personal support.  The user Rob refuses to consider the actual arguments submitted and instead fixates on categorizing people into suspicious (according to him) "for" or "against" camps." In a request for mediation I have already asked the community to consider bad-faith on the part of this user - maybe this allegation provides further proof of this. ChrisStefan (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am also demonstrating bad-faith by the user Rob on the discussion page of Sharlto Copley because of this user's biased deletion of relevant information on that page. ChrisStefan (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

My response is not based on Copley’s sport and academic achievements though they clearly had a significant influence on his understanding of performance excellence as well as the pitfalls of competition as they might influence the relationships of community members on all levels. My view is from an individual and collective competence development perspective as I encounter as a business advisor of occupation. I find the article novel. If an academic article debating a specific issue is submitted, it should depart from a thorough literature review not to reinvent the wheel. The candidate must either add or deviate from the outcome of such a thoroughly referenced review to add to the body of knowledge. If a person forms the source of the article based on achievements breaking the stereotypes and moulds of confinement, I view the listed references from that perspective against the background of failed interventions over time. I am of opinion based on the outcome of my study mission interventions that most development attempts fail in isolation as the inventors became prisoners of their disciplines exploring the territory from a single perspective building learning maps on halfistic truths. I find from the work of Copley a fresh and critical difference much needed to solve various people and organisational development dilemmas. In my own terminology I define the organisation and its people as a Work Place Community which will stay a pseudo arrangement unless diversity op values and feelings are exposed and penetrated and real understanding and respect are fostered. There exist a vast amount of literature and development interventions on Team Building, but very little on community building in the work place. There exist a subtle but critical difference between team and community and Copley provides a specific insight into practical ways of building workplace communities. That and his insights on the field of holistic intelligence and the inter-connectivity of everything as illustrated by the hologram I consider of fundamental importance to real learning From what I see in the article this could be a prominent and much needed building block. It is not based on following the rules of business but re-writing them. I therefore consider this article as notable and important and would vote for it not to be removed. I do not like the inclusion of achievements of family members as they are not necessary to establish credibility of the main subject, on the contrary I think they might jeopardise the integrity of the article unintentionally in that it might provoke personal alienation of the main subject. I consider it as "noise, but focussing on the "main event" I did not allow this to influence my judgement. Dr Deon Mushavi Huysamen — Mushavihuysamen (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Mushavihuysamen (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC) — Mushavihuysamen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My previous response was primarily based on the worthiness of the content of the article based on my field experience on the terrain, but obviously that will depend on where you view it from to some extent. As far as the removal from the platform is concerned based on the rules of Wikipedia, I cannot find enough substance to support deletion. The independant references are enough in my opinion and arguments on some of their value falls outside the boundaries of acceptance as far as I am concerned. The value of a diamond lies in what is cut away and if those references under debate are deleted, the article stays valid and noteworthy. Without going into a debate on the trees in the forest which drew critisism I find the forest worthy of staying. The arguments above are not substantial to comply with deletion. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushavihuysamen (talk • contribs) 11:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Mushavihuysamen (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This comment is posted on the article's dicussion page and seems to be meant for this page, so I copy it here: ChrisStefan (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Bruce Copley is known to many. Some may say with unwanted results and others claim powerful benefits. Certainly his impact is way above avarage as his accompanying references indicate. What remains easy to reference, is that Copley continues to make a marked impact socially. Whether that be in the sports or the human development arena. I have checked the references supplied and they are both plentiful and credible. For this reason I feel that his listing is warranted and should remain. I believe comment on his ability to make fire with a didgeridoo and sound is controversial and possibly not appropriate in the space provided, as insufficient scientific accompaniment exists at this time. Myview2 (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC) — Myview2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete I am somewhat uncertain about this 'creating' fire business. Some of what I find about it appears to suggest that the rhythm and note create the ember, some to suggest that an ember placed inside with kindling can be made to flame. The latter sounds the most likely to me, but so what? You can blow on an ember with kindling and get it alight. The whole article is promotional. Refs? I'll start with the Rhodes accolades. I read a few of them as well as Copley's, and decided they probably were all PR. They sound like PR, anyway. The itftennis one is a list of articles by all sorts of people. The AfriOceans Warriors one is a brief mention. So is the amybiehl ref. Sun Valley is a gallery of pictures with no real explanation. I can't comment on fevacasters as I refuse to install Flash on this machine. The leadership365 one is a better mention, but wordpress is not exactly a reliable source any more than blogspot is. Like Wikipedia, anyone can post there. (But unlike Wikipedia, things are not subject to a small army of monitors...) We get a lot of motivational speakers here at AfD, though not many are multi-instrumentalists. I too am a multi-instrumentalist, but haven't tried a vuvuzela (from what I heard during the World Cup I'm not sure I want to), and with the price of didgeridoos I wouldn't particularly want to set fire to one (unless I was using the fire technique rather than termites to make one - termites are more than scarce here). While I think there could be notability in the subject, I don't feel the article shows it sufficiently. It would definitely need a complete rewrite to avoid the largely promotional tone. Peridon (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment "The value of a diamond lies in what is cut away" - OK. You have the bits cut away and I'll have the diamond... Peridon (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment @ Peridon You pretend to have done the research and to have examined the sources and the articleclosely, but on closer inspection it is clear that your comments are inaccurate and even false.
 * Fire Didge: Ember placed in kindling has to be present.  However there are very particular conditions which must exist before a fire can be started in a didge.  You can blow as hard as you want and with whatever rhythm, but unless you do it at one particular note the fire will not start.  It took a lot of work by Dr Copley to discover this and has not been done by anybody else before.  I wonder what Edison would have made of your comment "so what" if you had made it when he finally discovered the material that works as a filament for his lightbulb. (He might have wished that he had discovered the revolver instead.)
 * Re Rhodes Alumni: Once again, the Rhodes 'accolades' on this page have nothing to do with any promotional effort, this source is used solely to prove beyond doubt the biographical fact that Dr Copley is a Rhodes alumnus.
 * ITF tennis articles: By "all sorts of people" you are referring to notable tennis scientists. This is a list independently collected by the world's governing body of tennis, and if you read the article and the comments above you would see why Dr Copley's contributions here are remarkable and unmatched since the 70's up to the present day.
 * The Afri-Oceans Warriors: Brief mention? Hmm... twice of Dr Copley plus once of his son Donovan, plus photo showing participation and organisation of this key event.  Also, this is a supporting source used with three other sources which together serve to prove a particular claim incontestably and completely.
 * Amy Biehl Foundation: The Amy Biehl mention which you call 'brief' is actually an entire page with photos and quotes and reports about a learningshop hosted by Dr Copley with the Amy Biehl Foundation, which they say is the first of its kind for their staff.
 * Sun Valley Primary School Gallery: There is a saying 'a picture is worth a thousand words' but in this case it seems more are needed. The statement in the article where the source is used might give us a clue though ... yes! The pictures are independent and reliable proof of participation in a community project! Mystery solved.
 * Wordpress blog: This reference is undeniably reliable and a simple internet search can easily verify the worth of this author. I have now done this work by including a link to this author's company website.
 * Notability of the article: From WP:NOTE "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and they therefore require articles to be 'notable' enough for inclusion, which means it should have been 'noted' to a significant degree by enough independent, reliable and verifiable sources". Also, have you read the argument above about how this page compares to other Wikipedia pages?
 * Promotional tone: All the statements are factual and totally independently verifiable by reliable sources. Sometimes, that which is 'extraordinary' might appear to be 'promotional' to some people.  As an example, please indicate to us how to rewrite the following sentence into a less 'promotional' sounding statement without losing information or falsifying it: "Dr Copley was awarded the prestigious British Association Silver Medal in 1982 for outstanding Scientific Research[12] and was the first Sports scientist to receive this award".
 * I welcome your comments to my comments about your comments. ChrisStefan (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Participating in a community project and being a Rhodes alumnus are not of themselves notable. The 'brief mentions' are in reports of events. They do not look to me like coverage of Copley as a person. Comparison with other pages doesn't come in - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. 'So what?' was because no significance is shown for this 'discovery'. The use of tungsten in light bulbs was important. Are we expected to go around lighting fires with didgeridoos? Does it have a moral message? Is it good for building teamwork? Or is it a party trick? I don't know. I can't see any reason why anyone would want to start a fire in a didgeridoo. "The pictures are independent" - they tell us nothing. Words like 'prestigious' (and 'passionate') are usually regarded as peacock terms. I will grant possible notability in the sports field - but volume is not notable. The claim of the book being 'prescribed' needs a citation. Who prescribed it? Was it used?  Back to the didge: "It took a lot of work by Dr Copley to discover this and has not been done by anybody else before." Has anyone done it since? Has anyone really tried? Peridon (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Peridon: Re didgeridoo. I am a passionate musician and I welcome opportunities to find out about innovations in the industry all over the world. I find it inspiring when people make an effort to push boundaries, no matter what shape or form, as long as no harm is done to other people or the planet. I can't understand why WP would go to such pains to prevent this bit of so-called trivia from being visible to people who might just find it interesting? Whilst I think you are quite a humorous well meaning person, I feel uncomfortable with the fact that you seem to be speaking on behalf of the rest of the planet's population when you use the word "we". In other words, speak for yourself.41.133.243.26 (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — 41.133.243.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.