Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Steven Yates (martial artist)

I received an email from the articles creator, asking that they be kept. For openness, my reply follows:


 * The discussion on articles is a very common one - fifty or a hundred articles a day might be discussed under the question "does this meet our inclusion criteria".


 * The question is always a communally based one, and not an individual decision; a particular user might raise the question but it's "users in general" who consider the point and reach their individual conclusions. So in a way, although Ive added "RAT" to the discussion, it's completely out of my hands once that's done, I don't have a say what others will think in reply.


 * I can say this: Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are strictly evidence based. You will need to produce verifiable, good, evidence that the concerns raised are okay, and that the criteria for articles to exist are being met in the case of these 2 articles. So it's a bit like "burden of proof" - having created the articles you (or anyone considering they should be kept) need to show good cause why they do in fact meet Wikipedia's requirements.


 * For RAT, that might be evidence it's a proper martial art, with many teachers, or widely taught, or with a formal structure or organization that's of a size or significance that it's been widely known, for example. For the article on Steve Yates one would need to show this was not just "some random martial artist" (those are 10 a penny) but someone of enough significance in the martial arts world as to merit an article. The evidence for these should be not just personal claims, not promotional pieces, but material that anyone can verify and which suggests these to be the case.

FT2 (Talk 08:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

--Steven Yates (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have added some sources to the articles talk page as possible evidence of notability.

Review of proposed sources
From Talk:Rough and tumble:


 * CITTE (Durban 25-27 September 2002) - RATs on the Web. Plague or blessing?
 * "Conference on IT in Tertiary Education", self presented paper on RAT by Steve Yates. (Better link: and click "View as HTML" on the PDF item]). Evidence value - self published writing with no especial evidence of noteworthiness. Unlikely to speak to question which is about RAT's standing as a martial art.


 * WEB 2003 (Durban 10-12 September 2003) – RATOnline: Teaching a South African Martial Art Online.
 * "5th Annual Conf. on World Wide Web Applications" - appears to be a web development event at which a presentation of some kind was undertaken related to "how RAT teaches itself online". Unlikely to speak to caliber or standing of the sport or method.


 * AFRICAN SCHOLARSHIP (Durban 2-4 December 2003) – Poster presentation. RATOnline: Teaching a South African Martial Art Online.
 * Apparently a presentation of the same or similar focus as the above; similarly not speaking to caliber or standing.


 * WEB 2004 (Johannesburg 1-3 September 2004) – Poster presentation. Wheel spanners, computers and RATs: An online martial arts course and resources.
 * Web 200x again, see above, likely also to be a self presentation at an event whose focus is web based promotion, website use and methods, and site development.


 * WEB 2005 (Cape Town 29–31 August 2005) – RAT Online: Towards Effective Delivery of Online Martial Arts Web Resources (Paper). Session chair. (source).
 * Web 200x again, see above.


 * EMERGE 2006 (Online conference 10 July - 21 July 2006) RAT Online: The Wheel Spanner - An Online Self-Defence Course (Paper) (source).
 * Appears to be a refereed paper in a proper journal link, but its in a journal about education methods and its focus is Steve Yates' teaching methods online, with RAT being an object of this (he might as easily be teaching karate, or cookery, in a sense). Doesn't speak to the question.


 * WEB 2006 (Bloemfontein 5-8 September 2006) – Poster Presentation. RAT Online: The Pen is Mightier than the Sword - An Online Self-Defence Course.
 * Web 200x, see above.


 * The Electronic Library (TEL) (2006) RAT Online: Martial Arts Learning Resources. Published 2007. Vol. 25 No. 5, 2007 (source).
 * Another Yates paper, "The purpose of this research is to document the development and evaluation of a multimedia resource for the principles, techniques and syllabus content for Rough and Tumble" - also covers educational methods and as above isn't "significant coverage of the art, that evidences standing and significance". As with the above, doesn't speak to question.


 * International Journal of Education and Development using ICT (IJEDICT) (May 2007) RAT Online. The Wheel Spanner: An online self-defence course. Paper selected for special issue (link). Published in late 2007. Draft version: source
 * Same paper as referenced under EMERGE 2006 above. Doesn't speak to question.


 * EMERGE 2008 (Online Conference 7-18 July 2008) – RAT Online The Belt: En Route to Effective Online Self-Defence Courses. Made available in October 2008 (source)
 * Another paper by the creator of RAT, same educational target as above, "The aim is to successively improve these courses and show that some types of martial arts learning can take place online." Doesn't speak to question.


 * The Way of the Warrior: Martial Arts and Fighting Skills from Around the World by Chris Crudelli, Dorling Kindersley Limited 2008, London, New York, Munich, Melbourne, Delhi, ISBN 978-1-4053-3095-4 
 * Encyclopedia of martial arts. Amazon book link Amazon book contents actual entry p.292 Genuine 3rd party mention, but unclear if it's included just by being a martial art school, or because of some criteria of significance. Ie is it "indiscriminate" or not. At least some reliable 3rd party has taken some kind of actual note. Can't tell much more.


 * Combat Journal source
 * Appear to be a self-submitted promotion article in an e-magazine. context link - note "article submission" at top and general tone. Doesn't appear to speak to question.


 * source and source
 * "electronic Martial Spirit of Southern Africa" members and calendar pages. Appears to be a website ring for South African martial arts schools. No evidence of standing of website, or inclusion criteria beyond "being a martial art school" though. Appears to be a usual kind of forum that any martial arts group can add themselves to.

FT2 (Talk 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A good summary of the sources I think, but of course some of the teaching online was entrenched in the teaching approach used in RAT and while it could just as well be any martial art, this is not entirely true without the teaching approach used. It would not have worked in the same way. The RAT online project was born out of a need to keep people learning because of the emigration of many members, not for self-promotion, hence the publication in academic platforms as opposed to commercial ones. As I have said previouly, I do not really care if the Steven Yates article is removed, but do if the rough and tumble article is removed, because its community cares. I must mention that part of the source of this problem (rough and tumble up for deletion) is due to us not promoting ourselves. We have rather focused on what it is being taught and how it is taught.

Anyway, I think that other sources will probably come from witnesses, not only those who have trained in RAT, but those who have competed against RAT practitioners. I can only ask people to do this, but have no control over who will and who won't and some information may be considered sensitive and thus not placed on here. I hope that will be sufficient. I do have paper documentation, but this will not work on this platform. Thanks for your help.

--Steven Yates (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The question isn't witnesses (= personal views or opinions) so much as evidence/citations. The above are exactly what citations should be, except as you can see, most of them don't evidence that RAT is indeed a method or art of standing and notability. Instead they evidence that its main proponent gives talks or writes articles about it, and about his teaching methods.


 * If there is evidence of standing or notability of the art itself (coverage of a significant nature and degree that indicates it genuinely has wider standing and awareness in the world, within credible sources who don't "just print anything") that's more what's needed here.


 * Examples would be significant editorial or "human interest" coverage/articles in reputable papers, credible papers or book coverage by non-RAT proponents who have decided to write on RAT, significant coverage in non-RAT martial arts publications, etc. FT2 (Talk 12:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)