Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolly Burkan (2nd nomination)


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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 15:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Tolly Burkan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A recent set of back-and-forth mini edit wars have made me look a bit deeper into the subject and the sources available for this article. In all of the online sources (and from what little I have seen of the offline sources) Burkan commands no significant coverage. 95% of the coverage is mentioning him as starting the corporate-training firewalking business and offering little else. I still cannot find one of the offline sources listed on the page, but the others are in a similar vein to the online sources. Burkan seems to have done little to attract public attention, and while he may be well-known, he does not appear to meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia. I am, however, willing to be convinced otherwise, should more appropriate sources be revealed. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel almost sorry that abuse (conflict of interest, and neutrality) of the page has directly lead to this -- but the abuse seems to point out an underlying issue. A strict reading of Notability seems to indicate this subject is not notable enough for inclusion. Arbalest Mike (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 20:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for not being notable. Tayste (edits) 20:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete One can be respected and notable in their field without being notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. This appears to be the case here. There are references, but those are passing mentions or endorsements of businesses. A teacher does not inherit the notability of one of their students; i.e. the talk page claim of "I taught Tony Robbins!" There are google hits, but mostly for speaking engagements and public appearances for commercial ventures in a specific field. What we don't see is independent, third party sources writing about the subject, and that is what establishes encyclopedic notability. On that basis, the subject fails WP:GNG.  Oh, and someone should check the talk page, as there is a post claiming to be the subject, with personal contact details and such that should perhaps be REVDEL'ed  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment there is a rather lengthy post from Burkan posted on this AFD's talk page. If Mr. Burkan reads this, I would like his honest opinion on whether those articles specifically talk about him, or simply mention him as the instructor of a course/ideology/etc. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As much as I hate split conversations, I have the response requested from Mr. Burkan on my own talk page. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Much as I hate to say it, I really do not believe we should take the subject's word for his own notability. This individual has played with sockpuppets and IP's to edit war content into this article, and is clearly biased do to his WP:COI.  I am not averse to a re-examination of the sources, but I would not blithely take his word for it. I don't doubt for a moment that he is a major contributor to the (sport?)/(event?) of firewalking, but there is nothing that conveys notability beyond it.  At best, the minimal content in this article should be merged into the firewalking article.  Scr ★ pIron IV 19:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur, hence this nomination. I can't find any sources, and despite claims of them existing I still have yet to actually see any. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That lengthy post has been pasted all over the place, verbatim. Forms of it appear as a fodder in edit wars on other's talk pages from some time ago.Arbalest Mike (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now perhaps until a better article can be made as the current sources show some hope but maybe not enough. Pinging past users, , , , and .  SwisterTwister   talk  05:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on. I would like to question the due diligence of voters-deleters. A quick google search immediately revealed two quite reputable sources with significant coverage:
 * National Geographic
 * full 3 pages in a book on firewalking, Princeton University Press, no less.
 * I see the deadline is up already, but IMO the article is salvageable. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * [ABC Science whatever it is for the Aussies
 * Discovery Channel
 * Edwards, Emily D. “Firewalking: A Contemporary Ritual and Transformation.” TDR 42 (1998): 98-114. -- Independent analysis of Burkan's seminars
 * Mythbusters - Firewalking 101
 * "The Encyclopedia of Religious Phenomena"
 * Conclusion. And I went only thru 10 first page of google hits. Whoever the alleged POV pushers for Burkan are, they were doing an extremely sloppy work with the article. The person is notable beyond any doubt in my rather skeptical mind. The statement "Burkan seems to have done little to attract public attention" is provably incorrect, as you see from my very limited cross-section: even Mythfreakingbusters had fun with him - if this does not count for public attention, then I don't know what else you want (Kardashian firewalking naked?).  - üser:Altenmann >t 06:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. to my considerable surprise, he does seem to be a notable in his special version of spirituality. I've read some of the  academic work -- the Princeton University Press book  and  the discussion in the article from TDR/The Drama Review (a MIT Press journal), is sufficient to show that,  toghether with the   National Geographic and the rest. These are more than mentions--he seems a prominent representative of his movement, and the coverage makes him notable. The other sources he mentions might add to ti--I haven;t checked them, because I consider that what I did check shows notability. I have said many times that I consider the GNG subject to misuse, but it does have a place sometimes when dealing with unfamiliar subjects of subjects that people here are not accustomed to take seriously. , I think the evidence answers your rationale of "Burkan seems to have done little to attract public attention, and while he may be well-known..."-- he has attracted a good deal of public attention. Anyway, a person can not be well known without having attracted public attention. You probably meant "public attention in reliable sources that we consider suitable for showing notability" But these sources are unquestionably reliable. I'm not happy with articles showing this degree of COI,but it does genuinely add to the encycopedia .  DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the new sources found by Altenmann. I know that AFD is NOTCLEANUP but I honestly couldn't find anything more than mentions, which seemed odd considering his history. The new sources definitely demonstrate notability and should be added into the article. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.