Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Natural Stress Relief

Natural Stress Relief
I have changed the 'Paranormal' deletion sorting to 'Spirituality'.

While the WP definition of 'Paranormal' is quite loose, for most of us, 'Paranormal' deals with remote viewing, telekinesis, dowsing, poltergeists, and similar nonsense. Since Natural Stress Relief is a down-to-earth stress reduction technique with scientific backing and acceptance by a wide range of sensible people, it makes more sense to add it to the category 'Spirituality', even though I'm not even sure it can be considered spiritual. At least it's no longer 'Paranormal', which makes no sense in the case of Natural Stress Relief. David Spector 21:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved this from unindexed subpage of discussion. Not only is this highly improper, amounting to undoing another editor's talkpage edit, it didn't even bother to add the "Spirituality" category sort to the discussion as it claimed to be doing. The change has been undone, and spirituality added to the cats under which this discussion is being conducted. Fladrif (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep at the AFD's talk page, and work it out there. I am copying this content back.  Also, links are good.  lifebaka++ 02:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No one informed me of these changes to my work. I have done what I thought was reasonable, keeping this discussion on the deletion page, where the Paranormal tag is placed. Now you seem to be in effect forcing me to accept the Paranormal category in spite of my explanation. I did not undo anyone else's edit, but I've had my edits tampered with. I wish Fladrif would stop being a bully around here. David Spector (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion that aren't directly related to the deletion or retention of an article belong on the talk page. Such discussions on the AFD page are routinely and properly moved to the talk page.   Will Beback    talk    18:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved this back where David first put it. Didn't realize at the time that this had a discussion page of its own. I shouldn't have moved it. Sorry 'bout that. Fladrif (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Deletion

 * I was trying to respond in the Deletion page but I read: "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", hence I am responding here and also commenting about this inadequate and unmotivated decision, not based on a real consensus.
 * User DaveRaftery wrote:
 * I respectfully request that Fladrif recuse himself from this AfD per WP:COI since he has a conflict of interest with NSR and David Spector as documented above. DaveRaftery 01:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User Will_Beback replied:
 * I'm having trouble finding the documentation of Fladrif's COI. Could you repeat it here please? Will Beback   02:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Dave Raftery meant exactly, but I understand what he means substantially, and I imagine that everybody can easily understand that.
 * Users like Fladrif are oviously acting for the bad of Wikipedia, imposing their POV and obtaining their specific goals, but they are acting in a stictly formal way, so that the absurd result is that they are able to impose disastrous decisions that are accepted by a few other Editors, those who finally take wrong decisions without a real consensus. Sorry to say that, but the comment by Jayjg, the Editor who deleted the article, really reports a ridiculous reason for deletion:
 * "The result was delete. Few secondary sources, those presented in the AfD are trivial mentions (or don't mention it at all)". Jayjg  04:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This statement about secondary sources: "...(or don't mention it at all)..." is especially laughable. It passively copies the tendentious comment by Fladrif, the Editor who proposed the page deletion. This may be acceptable only because today it is April 1, April Fools' Day, but it would be not acceptable in a (so to say) "regular" day... (I am just joking, but not very much).
 * The final result is not simply an insult to Natural Stress Relief meditation but it is, over all, an insult to Wikipedia, which is forced by such Editors to be an unreliable source. Just check the continuous edit war that has been going for years on the Transcendental Meditation article, even when it is not April 1.
 * For those who really worry about Wikipedia being used as a promotional tool: please realize that such a decision, to delete the Natural Stress Relief meditation article, is so unmotivated and unfair that the decision itlsef (with its unmodified reference to the Deletion page) might easily used itself as promotional tool. For example: "See how strong and effective NSR meditation is, so that Wikipedia is unprepared to accept and list it!". This might be easily done, since everybody with a functioning brain can see the big difference between the objective importance of NSR meditation in the real world, as reported by third parties and secondary sources, and the laughable reasons that have been exposed for the article deletion.
 * I will try to add other comments and new sources (and explanations about the quoted ones) when I have the time, so that a "Deletion Review" can be opened soon, after April 1 jokes have come to pass, of course. If Wikipedia is a reliable source for the web, as I still believe, The "Deletion Review" will cause the undeletion of the article, and to a possible better definition of the article, such as "Natural Stress Relief meditation" rather than simply "Natural Stress Relief".
 * Regards,
 * Fabrizio Coppola
 * Istituto Scientia, Italy
 * April 1, 2010, 18:12 (UTC)


 * Mr. Coppola: Hundreds of articles are created on Wikipedia every day, and most of them are deleted immediately for one or another basic defect. In almost every case those deletions are not a reflection on the value of the article's subject, but rather are due to the subject's lack of notability. For Wikipedia's guidelines on inclusion, see WP:NOTABILITY. Notability is determined by the availability of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. In this case, there were not sufficient sources to merit inclusion. If more sources become available then the situation changes. When you find such sources I suggest that you register an account (it's free) and create a "sandbox" page in which you can develop a version of the article based on those sources. If it's a significant improvement over the deleted version then an administrator (myself or any other you can flag down) could check it over and, if it looks acceptable, move it to the main article space.
 * Finally, please try to avoid attributing bad motives to the actions of other editors. So far as I can tell, no one has acted improperly in this matter. Assuming good faith is one of this site's behavior policies. See WP:AGF.   Will Beback    talk    21:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Will is absolutely correct. To use NSR's inspiration as an example, if Wikipedia had existed 50 years ago, an article about Transcendental Meditation probably would have suffered the same fate as the Natural Stress Relief article if an AfD were started prior to 1966-1967. Until then, there was very little independent, reliable, secondary coverage of TM, even after more than a decade of teaching it. There were a few ads in newspapers. The Maharishi had written his book. His followers had put out "Beacon Light". Not much else. Significant reliable secondary coverage is the Wikipedia standard for notability. That was the only issue. It has nothing to do with any assessment or labeling of the nature, validity, value or potential of the subject matter. If NSR experiences a boom in secondary coverage even a minute fraction of what ensued for TM in the late 1960s there is no question that, in that event and at that time, it would then cross the notability threshhold and an article at Wikipedia would be in order. At this point in time, however, it does not. Nor is it even a close question. It is unfortunate that the heads of this company - one of whom is a Wikipedia novice and may be excused on that ground, but the other whom is a Wikipedia veteran with nearly 8 years of experience here - having completely misunderstood, misapplied and misconstrued the AfD process and standards, would resort to baseless and immoderate accusations against the other participants in the process. Fladrif (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)