Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bones for Life

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. My reasoning is thus: of the four references, two are by Ruthy Alon, one is an interview with Ruthy Alon in Feldenkrais Journal, a publication of dubious impartiality, and the fourth is a reference that, in my opinion, is dubious: Aspray TJ, Prentice A, Cole TJ, Sawo Y, Reeve J, Francis RM. Low bone mineral content is common but osteoporotic fractures are rare in elderly rural Gambian women. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 1996 Jul;11(7):1019-25. (PMID 8797124). I don't know that the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research on Gambian Women doesn't contain significant references to Bones for Life, but I am suspicious. Secondly, we have to be very careful about letting spam into the Wikipedia. Granted the article has been rewritten well, still. It's spammish history shows that it was not written by a disinterested scholar but by the very people who stand to benefit from the inclusion of the article. That's another point against the article. Thirdly, I did not find the Keep arguments to be strong as regards to notability. If Alon was a top figure in a recognizedly important medical field, that would be one thing. Being a top figure (claimed, anyway) in the less notable Feldenkrais Method is insufficient to establish notability. Herostratus 19:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bones for Life

Article is an attempt at rewriting Bones for Life -- Wellness through Movement Intelligence to remove most obvious violations of WP:SPAM. Article is still unverifiable, consisting almost entirely of original research. Subject is non-notable. --Ronz 17:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please note significant new reference DBOLTSON has now included a reference 5-page interview with Ruthy, largely about Bones for Life in the Feldenkrais Journal (the primary "trade publication" of the Feldenkrais Guild of North America). The editors of that journal are highly qualified to judge this kind of article (they are experts put in place by other experts), so it should be considered as authoritative. The reference is currently a bit hard to track down, but the author is seeking permission to include the text on-line. --KineticScientist 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional reference I've just posted the news article from Lesley University's monthly publication, "Lesley Today" regarding a for-credit program that was taught there on Bones for Life. --KineticScientist 14:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally, a single reference that almost meets Wiki policy. Can you find something like this that doesn't include the promotional material at the end? Any thoughts of rewriting the article to actually use the references that are being listed now that you're so close to having acceptable ones? --Ronz 20:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that self-published sources are given consideration when the author is an expert in their field, which is the case with Ruthy Alon. No one is disputing that, are they? 58.178.157.210 06:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deleteper nom, although I'll change my view if secondary references are included. Addhoc 17:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep / Merge. Widely published and translated author is one of the most prominent Feldenkrais Practitioners in the world. Both her and her movement therapy are well known. The nominating user seems to be on a deletion binge in somatics. Not sure why. 58.178.238.236 03:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then provide the references please. No one has provided any yet and I've found nothing in my searches except advertising. Also, I don't appreciate the personal attack. --Ronz 15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing except advertising? Good grief. These are the kind of exaggerations we can do without. Try this search or this search if you want just the author. Since when do we wholesale delete an article that is under-referenced? Article has three references as a good start. 58.178.129.162 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for that apology. Don't appreciate your continued complaints about me either. I ran my own searches and everything I found would fall under WP:SPAM. The article has three very poor references by wiki standards, which support only a single section of the article so far. The bottom line is that so far the authors have not actually cited what they are using for references, or they are simply writing original research. --Ronz 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You call having her own book on the topic and a link to a Medline article a poor standard? Your argument is clearly nonsense. I'd like you to apologise for wasting everyone's time. 58.178.129.162 05:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Still more personal attacks? Still ignoring Wiki policy and guidelines? Project much? --Ronz 14:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless adequate references are provided. --apers0n 16:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep / Merge. Article is up to reasonable standards for Alternative Medicine, in which primary informational web presence is often also "commercial." Ruthy's book, while ostensibly about the Feldenkrais method, contains the majority of ideas now referred to as "Bones for Life." That being said, I've requested news articles from the Bones teacher forum. Public utility outweighs current weakness in references. --KineticScientist 21:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The article must list sources as far as I'm aware. So far the bulk of the article has none. --Ronz 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep / Merge. The Bones for Life work is a descendant of the somatic disciplines of Elsa Gindler and Heinrich Jacoby, F.M. Alexander (The Alexander Technique), Gerda Alexander (Eutony) with a lineage and direct pedigree from Moshe Feldenkrais (Ruthy Alon's esteemed teacher) with cousins including Thomas Hanna's Somatic Education -- all of whom have mentions in WikiPedia (yet none of whom are living, unfortunately). Given this works's newness (having evolved only over the past 10 years) it is understandable that reference material is limited, but due to its pedigree and growing recognition (having taken root in 19 countries on 5 continents, with over 500 teachers worldwide) it would seem an oversight for it not to be granted some acknowledgement, if only for the sake of completeness. References to Bones for Life -- as written up in newspaper articles worldwide -- are in the process of being gathered (I trust Hebrew is acceptable). Speaking from personal experience, this work, based on solid biomechanical, ergonomic principles is most credible -- not to mention effective -- and deserves further attention by your readers inquiring into cutting edge approaches to Alternative Medicine and NCCAM. Does WikiPedia have a specialist "research librarian" personally knowledgeable and experienced in the area of body therapies and somatic educational approaches to provide more "hands-on" insight and evaluation from a connoisseur's perspective? --DBOLTSON 03:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Note here what's happening: the main author, DBOLTSON, is trying to find sources AFTER writing the article. He's caught up in proving what he's writing is true, ignoring Wiki policy that he should be be writing directly from sources he has on hand. He's doing original research. --Ronz 14:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, in a more gentle light, after making a contribution which falls somewhat short (though is perhaps currently acceptable), DBOLTSON is trying to bring it up to the highest possible standards. Doing this article properly is hard, and DBOLTSON (and I, in any supporting role I've played) are just learning the ropes -- ignorant perhaps, but not purposefully 'ignoring'. --KineticScientist 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the problem here was the article was identified as problematic from it's very creation. While there are assertions that the article is acceptable from some editors, the explanations, when they exist, consist of more comments like DBOLTSON's above: long on claims and short on sources. --Ronz 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The skepticism here is wonderfully healthy and challenging! Thank you, everyone! Please bear in mind that, just because one does not believe in something -- understandably because one has not experienced it for himself -- does not mean that (1) it does not exist and (2) it is not a valid approach, worthy of consideration. Please excuse my enthusiasm for Bones for Life (which prompted me to create this entry in the first place) while we amplify the resource section in order to substantiate its growing worldwide recognition, and approach WikiPedia's high standards for inclusion. Being too close to a subject can often blind one to its flaws; being too far can often blind one to its merits. With everyone's contributions, I trust we can find a more objective middleground! --DBOLTSON 23:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article being considered for deletion? The POV is a bit overly promotional, but it's the violations of WP:SPAM, WP:NOR, and WP:V that are of concern. --Ronz 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? No one's really agreeing with you. Anon. 58.178.194.85 00:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Addhoc and User:apers0n agree on deletion. I'm just trying to point out that DBOLTSON's discussion of skepticism etc has nothing to do with the issue of deletion as far as I can see. Maybe you see different and can explain? --Ronz 00:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Users User:Addhoc and User:apers0n asked for more references and they were provided, so that leaves you. But let me be more specific about what I am asking of you.

Regarding WP:V: You got the references you requested and also tonnes more links through google. I'd like to know specifically why you consider the 7 new references on the page to be inadequate. There are references to widely published and translated books, a medline article, interviews, and sundries. It's been established this is a notable person in the field. There are some 700+ google matches including many impartial interviews to be sorted through. Why do you consider all this to be inadequate?

Regarding WP:SPAM: I am requesting more information because it isn't clear what you are calling spam. You are working to fix the article on the discussion page, so clearly at least some of the article has merit in your eyes. Which parts do you have a problem with and why? I've noticed on other articles that you seem to consider all external links anywhere other than scientific journals to be spam, which is not the usual spam threshold on wikipedia, especially on alternative therapy articles.

Regarding WP:NOR: Everyone on the article talk page has agreed the article could be more wikified and it's worth working towards fixing that. The founding editors are new to wikipedia and it's obvious they need a helping hand. All users are clearly indicating the article has some merit, and even you have been making comments on the talk page. So why is this grounds for deleting the article? If you believed the entire article violates WP:NOR why would you be suggesting improvements on the article talk page?

I'm trying to make sense of your position. Best wishes. Anon. 58.178.194.85 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Addhoc and apers0n, rather than anyone assuming their positions.

WP:SPAM: I don't recall seeing any contention that DBOLTSON's original article was spam. My only concern now with this policy is that the new article, if not deleted, resolve the problems of the original article. Additionally, WP:SPAM lists an important issue, which I see as more WP:NOR: "Therefore, it can never be correct to add a link or reference to References sections if nobody editing the text of the article has actually referred to it." I don't think the article has solved the SPAM issues because of the NOR issues.

WP:V: I think the editors have made very good progress providing verifiable references, though there still appears to be very heavy reliance upon Alon's book and her website. I think Aspray(1996) should be removed because there appears to be no connection between it and this Wiki article. Alon(2005) should be removed because, as I understand, it is only an abstract - the actual research paper has never been published. Still, I think these issues are minor, other than how they relate to the WP:NOR issues.

WP:NOR: (see the above quote from the WP:SPAM article) From my perspective, the article is original research with some references added that were never used as source material. I personally like the recent addition of the "Working Theory", though this not actually specific to Bones for Life and so could be moved to another article. The Research section should be removed, since it is based upon an abstract of an unpublished paper. --Ronz 02:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Spam Reads and probably is still spam. If after a supposed rewrite its still pretty much, I'd say it may be unfixable, and thus not for wikipedia. It seems like one of those random medical ideas that aren't well constructed or proven, where there's a collection of loosely related medical content that is original research to collect it into the medical idea presented. In summary, the program is not well established, and its spam for bonesforlife.com. --Kevin_b_er 01:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if, after a rewrite, users consider it still too isolated we merge it with Feldenkrais method. It might be useful information in context of it's parent field. Best wishes. Anon. 58.178.194.85 01:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Significant rewrite: Okay, I've done a considerable rewrite of the article removing advertising style language and culling unecessary fluff. You can see the differences here. I believe there really is some encyclopedic content here. With a couple more citations and ensuring the article doesn't bloat I think it's a reasonable addition to wikipedia. Please note I commented out some of the notability evidence at the bottom of the article in order to streamline the treatment. Let us know your thoughts on the new article. Best wishes. Anon. 58.178.194.85 03:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment my concern regarding the article is the lack of secondary references, so there is no commentary on the ideas being expressed. However, I recognize there is some encyclopedic content here and would support a merge, possibly into Feldenkrais method. Addhoc 15:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

self-published sources are given consideration when the author is a known expert in their field, which is the case with Ruthy Alon. I can't help wondering whether this clause in our verifiability policy is applicable here. Best wishes. Anon. 58.178.157.210 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment A beautiful rewrite -- very succinct and clear (and objective). I see you well understand and appreciate what we are trying to communicate, and you do so expertly; your generous expenditure of time and effort is thoroughly appreciated -- Thank You, Anon 58.178.194.85! I will get to work on sourcing the Tel Aviv study, which was cited in Ruthy's own (unpublished) Proposal to NASA (I have a copy) Bones for Life Strategies for Effective Rehabilitation of Bone Strength within Protection of Vulnerable Joint and Connective Tissue. [Text from Page 4, supported by Appendix 20, page 31] -- Or might this be useful in and of itself? As far as criticism of the work, I think it is too new to have any commentary or detractors (especially given its focus on safety, and its general harmlessness, not to say effectiveness). It really is distinct from the Feldenkrais Method -- in aims, and in approach -- and ultimately merits unique filing, IMO. --DBOLTSON 18:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments. Secondary sources would probably most help other users feel more comfortable. Even conversations in Feldenkrais magazines should be enough to prove it's taken seriously as a modality. 58.178.157.210 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, having done a search for more references, I've reached the conclusion there is sufficient material to justify an article for Ruthy Alon and the Bones for Life material could be merged into this new article. Obviously, I'm proposing this somewhat later than optimum. Anyway... Addhoc 12:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to Ruthy Alon. Addhoc 12:47, 4 September 2006 (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.