Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivation

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. Deor (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vivation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's a seeker born every minute. This is an advertisement for a specific obscure cult's brandname variant of breathwork, and at most should be a redirect thererunto. Orange Mike | Talk 00:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been provided in several books, including secondary sources. If this article is being pushed to deletion, there must be accountable and justifiable reasons for doing so. As I have already pointed out, there are hundred of other Wikipedia entries that only cite primary sources. Also, calling this self-applied process a "cult" is both spurious and libelous. It is a valid and highly recognized form of breathwork, considered one of the three primary forms of Western breathwork, the other two being Rebirthing and Holotropic. Over 300,000 copies of primary source books have been sold. Therefore it meets the notability requirement. What then are the reasons for the proposed deletion, other than an ideological crusade? Playanaut (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Playanaut (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am urgently requesting mediation on this dispute from the Wikipedia Editorial community. Calling something a "cult" without substantiation is libelous. Vivation is a self-applied process people do *on their own*. There is no leader, and there is no "following". Vivation does not require any kind of allegiance, and there are no belief systems or dogmas attached to this very practical, hands-on skill of breathwork and relaxation techniques. Playanaut (talk)

Delete: Non-notable rebranding of breathwork, and a piece of advertising copy to boot. I strongly suspect many of the purported references added to this article don't discuss Vivation itself, as opposed to breathwork in general. That doesn't confer notability on Vivation, nor does the claimed number of books (whether actually sold to consumers or, much more likely, to bookstores for resale). The arguments in favor of keeping presented here are typical distractions from the central issue: this subject is not notable and this article is written to promote something that is not notable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The work of Jim Leonard is not the same as other breath-work methods. Jim have published several books on the subject and I have during over 30 years done both Ribirthing, Liberating breath work, Vivation and others. His work is apart from other techniques and should have its own page. I would like to ask anyone who edit or place this for deletion if they have ever tried any breath-work, and more importantly to contribute to this pages existence, if they have done Vivation? It is one thing to ask for a page to meet the standards of Wikipedia as having a professional expression, it is another to involve oneself in the content of the page when there is substantial background like published books. Do not take part in the content of the page unless you have knowledge in the thing you edit. 195.1.123.118 (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC) — 195.1.123.118 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Open to changing my !Vote if reliable sources providing some in depth discussion. Currently article is based entirely on primary (self published?) sources. In a quick look around I didn't find anything but promotional material. No scholarly discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So suggestions for deletion coming from user: Mendaliv are now based on "strong suspicions". Where is your evidence? All the sources listed mention Vivation by name. Both the books by Michael Brown and Sigrid Lange, both discuss Vivation at length. They meet all the criteria for secondary sources as requested. All efforts have been made to describe the process of Vivation in a neutral, factual and descriptive manner. No promotional and advertising wording is there. Calling something "advertising copy" does not make it so. Additionally, standards are being applied to this article that are not being applied to other articles of it's type. One look at the entry on Kumdo will show you that despite it's very extensive length and descriptions, all references are from primary sources, with most of them coming from a single source. Since this controversy has arisen, I have found hundreds of substantive articles that merit DELETION based on the criteria being applied here. Playanaut (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what I have read in the sources provided is discussion by proponents. What is needed is some quality independent source that provides a description for paraphrasing. A description based on sources that are directly and intimately involved with the subject is not appropriate, it is in fact very similar to advertising copy. Has a scholar in the field done an analysis of this? Have there been peer reviewed articles published about this? These are the sources needed for an encyclopedic article, otherwise this material can be presented on the websites of proponents, advocates or the related businesses. This subject does not seem to warrant the level of discussion in reliable sources that would result in an encyclopedia article. I encourage you to post to the talk pages of any articles you find that lack reliable secondary sources or if clear cases place tags on them and if appropriate nominate them for deletion. Other bad stuff is on WP is not a valid argument for keeping more. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked quite hard for sources and outside the work by insiders there seems to be no more than a smattering of mentions. For this reason I don't think this topic is notable enough for an article (maybe it would warrant a mention in one of the many other breakwork-type articles we have). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 08:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge User:MrBill3 and User:Gene93k Firstly, thank you for bringing the tone of this discussion back where it needs to be, explaining in clear terms your reasoning. I went back and rechecked the Wikipedia entry on "Breathwork", and it too needs more documentation, more citable references, and more work to bring it up to the standards you are requiring here. My recommendation is the following - That the Vivation entry be merged into the larger Breathwork entry as part of a greater effort by other experts in this field to bring that entry's quality up. Although I have been an editor on Wikipedia for a long time, I am not as experienced as others here, and do not know the procedure for doing a merge of this kind. Although I happen to know quite a bit about Vivation, as a 30 year Yoga practitioner, I know even more about 'breathwork', including knowing several experts (i.e. PhD's in related fields) who could provide reliable 3rd party references, scholarly articles, peer review journal papers, scientific studies, etc., as part of improving the overall quality of the 'Breathwork' entry. Playanaut (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with merge: Vivation is not a notable form of breathwork. There's nothing to merge that would not result in violating WP:UNDUE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with merge per Menadaliv. I haven't seen anything that supports due weight for vivation. I welcome improvements to other articles on breathwork using quality sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment user:Gene93k Why is this discussion also occuring in Medical and Spiritual related discussion boards? This breathing and relaxation process is neither inherently medical or spiritual. I know of a no Vivation practitioner who refers to Vivation as alternative or complementary "medicine", and there is no spiritual component to it either. I continue to find it perplexing how a breathing, relaxation and simple awarness technique can be labeled any of these things. This is why the labels of "spiritual", "medical", and even "cult" as used by user: OrangeMike, are erroneous. I thought these discussions would at least occur from people versed enough on the topic to render an impartial and informed judgement. For the most part, such impartial and reasoned discussion has not occurred, until today. Playanaut (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playanaut - If you go to those pages you will see exactly what you see here. Adding a discussion topic is just another way to bring it to peoples' attention. If there is a WP community that should be in this discussion, please say what that is. LaMona (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on the talk page of the article there is a reliable source (not a practitioner) describing vivation as alternative medicine, the article contains biomedical information including physiological descriptions, claimed health benefits and claimed psychological benefits, there is an associated philosophy which many would consider spiritual. For these reasons the article falls under the scope of a variety of projects. Bringing an article to the attention of other editors is very much accepted and common practice on WP as long as done in an appropriate way (neutral, noncanvassing) it is very useful in improving the encyclopedia. Particularly in the case of an AfD it can bring editors with interest, knowledge and familiarity with sources to improve the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. My own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Self-promotion based on self-published and primary sources of little value. Nothing worth saving or merging. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor renaming of a standard procedure for promotional purposes.Lack of coverage as anything more specific than that. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK. jps (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.