Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Heisner

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Robert Heisner}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Robert Heisner}})

Biography of a Christian pastor and martial arts practitioner. While he was without any doubt an very worthy person who did good things for his community, I do not think he meets any notability criteria, neither WP:GNG/WP:BASIC nor WP:NATHLETE. The many sources are either primary and non-independent, non-reliable per WP:RS, or brief mentions in local newspapers. Taken together, these do not constitute significant coverage. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Martial arts, and New York. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:You said "The many sources are either primary and non-independent, non-reliable"

:My response: How are ~60 newspaper articles not reliable? How are newspaper articles not secondary sources. Heisner did not own any of the newspapers. How is Robert Heisner's involvement in giving the key to the city of Niagara Falls, NY to Shihan Hironori Otsuka (founder of Wado Kai) not notable?

:How can one Wikipedia editor can override other editors who have already approved the article? Bushido77 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

::You misread the nomination rationale. The sources are a) primary and non-independent or b) non-reliable or c) brief mentions in local newspapers. Taken together, these do not constitute significant coverage. You may also have missed the part where I referred to the specific notability criteria that must be met. Being involved in giving the key to a city to a notable individual is not grounds for notability. (I will not bludgeon the discussion by responding to everything, but I thought the misunderstanding should be cleared up.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:::You said "The sources are a) primary and non-independent or b) non-reliable or c) brief mentions in local newspapers."

:::My response: I don't misunderstand. ~60 newspaper articles and mentions is definitely notable. Newspapers are secondary and reliable sources (at least as I read the Wikipedia policies.)

:::How can one Wikipedia editor can override other editors who have already approved the article? Bushido77 (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:Heisner was not just a martial arts practitioner. He developed a new style combining seven different martial arts in which he was black belt ranked and instructor certified. He also launched a Christian martial arts ministry. Bushido77 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete While he may have had a positive local impact, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG. Most of the sources are either brief mentions or affiliated with Heisner, failing to provide the significant, independent coverage required. Most of them are mentions of him doing a performance in a local area. One sentence per article is not what we are looking for. Additionally, the tone of the article is not neutral WP:NPOV and reads more like a tribute than an encyclopedia entry. User:Bushido77, who has openly stated they were a student of Heisner for over 40 years, has a conflict of interest WP:COI, further compromising the article’s neutrality and reliability. This article contains unencyclopedic content with excessive detail, violating WP:UNDUE, and relies on primary sources, which do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability WP:RS. For these reasons, I believe this article should be deleted. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• :KEEP - the majority is NOT always right.
• :Absolutely! I admitted right from the beginning (as a Christian I am an honest person.) Even though I admitted it, I worked hard to make it neutral and the article was approved.
• :So, the majority will remove a valuable article from Wikipedia. The Heisner page has had more than 800 visitors in the last 30 days, which is more than many other martial artists pages on this platform. Bushido77 (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• :You said "Most of the sources are either brief mentions or affiliated with Heisner..."
• :My response: none of the newspapers are "affiliated with Heisner". He did not own or work for any of the newspapers.
• :You said "Additionally, the tone of the article is not neutral..."
• :My response: I worked on that to the point that the article was approved. Wouldn't the proper thing to do be to continue working on the tone, rather than deleting the article?
• :You said "who has openly stated they were a student of Heisner for over 40 years, has a conflict of interest "
• :My response: I honestly admitted that from the very onset of the article. I read the documents you cited and none of them forbade creating the article. It was encouraged against, but not forbidden. I am one of very few who knows the details of the founding of the karate system better than nearly all others. Someone should have told me I could not write the article, rather than let me waste 4 or 5 months working on it and getting past 5 or 6 rejections before it was finally accepted.
• :You said "This article contains unencyclopedic content with excessive detail..."
• :My response: in this case, would the proper response be to rewrite the article rather than delete it?
• :You said "and relies on primary sources, which do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability"
• :My response there are very few primary sources in the article, and there are many secondary sources that validate the few primary sources.
• :All in all, deleting the article is the wrong course of action. Improving the article is the appropriate steps to take. Bushido77 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• ::@Bushido77, We all appreciate the effort you’ve put into the article. Wikipedia’s standards focus on notability and reliable sourcing, not personal impact or page views. Yes, you disclosed your connection to Heisner. Even with good intentions, that connection can affect the article’s neutrality WP:NPOV. We recommend that editors with close ties to a subject let others take the lead to maintain impartiality WP:COI. I believe the best course is to let this article go. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• :::You said - " Even with good intentions, that connection can affect the article’s neutrality..."
• :::My response - I am not even suggesting that the article is completely neutral. I said I worked hard to make it neutral and the article was accepted.
• :::You said - "I believe the best course is to let this article go"
• :::My response - I completely disagree and your approach seems contradictory to Wikipedia editor guidelines. Somewhere I read (I have to find it) that the first response from editors should be to improve the article. But in this case the first response is to try to delete the article. Bushido77 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• ::::@Bushido77, honestly, this whole discussion feels like it’s veered off track. It seems like you’re more interested in debating every point than actually finding a productive path forward. At the end of the day, the purpose here isn’t to win an argument—it’s to determine if the article belongs on Wikipedia based on clear policies, not personal feelings or effort spent.
• ::::We get it—you’ve worked hard on this, and that’s commendable. But dragging out this discussion with repetitive justifications isn’t going to change the reality that articles need to meet notability and sourcing standards, and this one just doesn’t. No one is out to get you, and this isn’t personal. It's about maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia, and every editor here is trying to do that in good faith.
• ::::If you’re serious about contributing to Wikipedia in a meaningful way, maybe it’s time to step back, look at the broader picture, and accept that not every subject fits. There’s no shame in that—what matters is learning from this process and applying it to future contributions. But we’re not going to make progress if this stays stuck in a loop of defensiveness. Let’s keep it civil and focused on the task at hand, or we’ll just waste more time going in circles. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• :::::You said - "It seems like you’re more interested in debating every point than actually finding a productive path forward"
• :::::My response - a productive path forward does not include deleting a good article, about a notable individual, about a notable individual who contributed heavily to the martial arts, his community, Christianity, and via himself and others he impacted, the world.
• :::::If you have a productive path forward I will listen. So far all I have heard are self-justifications to delete (not go forward with) the article.
• :::::____________
• :::::You said - "Let’s keep it civil and focused on the task at hand, or we’ll just waste more time going in circles"
• :::::My response - I am all for it. But civil is not deleting an article based on what I believe are biased conclusions. Give me a constructive path forward... not a path to the trash heap.
• :::::I am listening. Bushido77 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Aside from the things mentioned above about him not meeting notability, the article was created by someone with a declared conflict of interest Nswix (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• :You said "Aside from the things mentioned above about him not meeting notability, the article was created by someone with a declared conflict of interest"
• :My response: where do Wikipedia rules forbid someone who knows the subject from writing an article? i wish someone would have told me that it was forbidden before I put 4 or 5 months of work into writing the article. Bushido77 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:Keep the article. Deleting it appears to be a wrong response to some issues that can be corrected with rewrites and positive edits. Bushido77 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

::@Bushido77, please remove the bold from one of your "keeps". You are not permitted to !vote twice. (I strongly recommend moving bold text from your discussion except for your single !vote, since it makes the discussion hard to follow. Italics can be used to express emphasis.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and have no idea how to edit or delete a comment. Is there a way? Bushido77 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

::::@Bushido77 just press edit and change your text. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::I only see "edit source" no edit. I use the visual editor. :-(

:::::I am really sorry that I tried Wikipedia. It seems very biased. Bushido77 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I reviewed each of the very many sources, and the vast majority of these are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:RSSM and other outlets. There is very little evidence that Heisner was discussed with WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. However, three sources do appear to get close to WP:SIGCOV, although one is short and it and another seem to be based solely on an interview with Heisner. They are two articles in the Buffalo News ([https://buffalonews.com/news/minister-uses-karate-to-aid-youth-aims-to-kick-alcohol-drugs-out-of-schools/article_96266904-5e5b-5bff-9917-48b6b61315c8.html here], [https://buffalonews.com/news/martial-arts-classes-teach-youth-positive-values/article_8a12d76a-73dd-5772-b239-49ba423a83ad.html here]) and one article in the [https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=nfg19700322-01.1.39&srpos=3&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-heisner----1970---Cattaraugus%2cChautauqua%2cErie%2cGenesee%2cMonroe%2cNiagara%2cOrleans%2cWyoming-- Niagara Falls Gazette]. I am truly on the fence so I'd submit these for Bonadea, Ktkvtsh, Nswix and other editors' consideration as to whether they qualify toward WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Even if the outcome is ultimately "keep" or "no consensus," this article will still need to be WP:TNT'd because the vast majority of it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• :You said "and the vast majority of these are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES "
• :My response: not possible. Heisner did not write those newspaper articles. He did not work for any of those papers.
• :You said "and one article in the [https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=nfg19700322-01.1.39&srpos=3&e=------197-en-20--1--txt-txIN-heisner----1970---Cattaraugus%2cChautauqua%2cErie%2cGenesee%2cMonroe%2cNiagara%2cOrleans%2cWyoming-- Niagara Falls Gazette]"
• :My response: there are several (I count 18 links) articles in the Niagara Falls Gazette.
• :As for blowing it up and starting again, that is unlikely. I spent 4 or 5 months writing, correcting, making it more neutral, etc. It was rejected 5 or 6 times before it was finally accepted. It is unlikely that I will be spending more time in what seems to me to be a biased atmosphere.
• :Why did the other editors accept the article?
• :I am all for improving the article, but deleting it after it has been published and after over 1,000 page views in such a short time, seems to me to be short-sighted and a biased (non-neutral) decision. Bushido77 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• ::First of all, please stop once and for all using bold text in the visual editor. It is disruptive formatting in a deletion discussion. The vast majority of the news stories you added are trivial mentions--a single quote from Heisner or a mention in a community section that he was going to teach a class at the YMCA. Often the mentions were his own ads, which yes, are primary sources, as are all the links to websites associated with him. There was only one Gazette article that got close to "significant coverage," which is what is required for a source to count toward a notability guideline. Finally, this is a rather counterproductive response to the only editor in this discussion thus far who has identified any sources that might support a "keep" decision. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• :::You said - " Often the mentions were his own ads"
• :::My response - Not true! His ads comprise three or four of the 60 newspapers and that was only to establish his schools under Park Jong-soo. One of those articles was put in the Toronto Yellow Pages by Master Park Jong-soo, not by Robert Heisner. Thus a secondary source, and one of the 12 original tae kwon do leaders.
• :::I am not desiring to be counter-productive, but one of your comments was blow it up and start again. That is not the right approach. Bushido77 (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• ::::Your view of what constitutes a primary source is significantly out of alignment with Wikipedia's. I don't have any more to say on this. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• :::::You said - "Your view of what constitutes a primary source is significantly out of alignment with Wikipedia's"
• :::::Copied from Wikipedia about primary sources:
• :::::"In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study."
• :::::My response - almost nothing in the Robert Heisner article is a primary source (the only exception that comes to mind is the book we wrote and a couple of advertisements he placed in local newspapers.)
• :::::Artifacts - possibly Master Park Jong Soo's 1970's Toronto Yellow Pages article
• :::::Nothing else appears to fall into the primary source category (that I can think of.) Bushido77 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::Oh, I see where your confusion comes from! It looks like you have been basing your understanding on the first couple of sentences in the Wikipedia article Primary source. Instead, you need to read and understand the Wikipedia policy page WP:PRIMARY. (It is also linked from the very top of the article you quoted from.) Wikipedia's definition isn't much different from the one used by historians, but the WP article doesn't mention all different kinds of primary sources in the introduction, so that's another reason to go straight to the policy page which is written with a different purpose in mind. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• :Thanks, {{u|Dclemens1971}}! I truly appreciate the work you did – I still don't think the sourcing is at all sufficient, though. As you say, one of the Buffalo News pieces is primary, so that's no good; the other one and the Niagara Falls Gazette are only slightly more substantial than all the trivial mentions in other papers. Added to the fact that both papers are hyper-local, I just can't see it. I'm not sure if I should go ahead and remove all the stuff that would have to be removed if the article were to be kept, just so we can get a better idea – as Ktkvtsh also pointed out above, there's tons of unencyclopedic detail in there. Am a little hesitant to put more time into an article I don't believe meets any notability criteria, though.

::{{u|Bushido77}}, you say above that you are not sure how to remove the bold formatting from your comments. Would it be OK if I or some other participant went ahead and did that for you (except for one "keep")? --bonadea contributions talk 19:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:::The keep thing is fine by me.

:::According to the Wikipedia articles I have/am reading, the vast majority of this article is secondary sources. Yes, there are some primary sources, but they are not the majority. Bushido77 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:Consensus - if four of us are in a room and I have $100 and the other three come to the consensus that I should give it to them... then they take it... that does not make the consensus right.

:I believe this attempt to delete this article is biased and not neutral. Bushido77 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

::OK, I have removed all superfluous bold formatting from your posts. Each of us gets to make one single bolded "keep"/"delete" comment, and you have already been asked several times not to add emphasis by using bold formatting. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 20:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:::The Wikipedia article that I read said that some bold was acceptable. What article says no bolding? Bushido77 (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

::::You were asked more than once not to use bold for emphasis in this AfD discussion, and have been asked the same thing in other discussions. Please show your fellow editors the courtesy of adapting your preferred formatting style when we ask you to do so. There is another thing as well: you had bolded the word "delete" at least four times. In an AfD discussion, we all get to make one bolded "keep" or "delete" comment, to show what our preference is. I hope this makes it clear. --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:Delete - agree with bonadea. much of this is just passing coverage of a person. there is nothing particularly WP:NOTABLE according to WP:GNG standards. If nothing else, it could maybe be put into draftspace for further work. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

::You said - "agree with bonadea. much of this is just passing coverage of a person. there is nothing particularly WP:NOTABLE "

::My response - 60+ newspaper articles are not notable? How many articles are you in?

::You offer a biased and skewed opinion.

::I wish Wikipedia offered an unbiased mediation option. Bushido77 (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:How does this work? Do I have to file a Dispute Resolution before you guys delete the article? Or does a dispute resolution need to be filed after the decision has been made? I don't want to miss my opportunity. Thank you. Bushido77 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

::@Bushido77 No, you go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Thanks. That looks like the page to go to after the page has been deleted. Correct?

:::Is dispute resolution an option before the page has been deleted? I would prefer to avoid deletion if possible. Bushido77 (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

::::DRN is not appropriate for an AfD which is itself a community discussion. It would be turned down if you tried. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::Is there any type of dispute resolution available in a case like this? Bushido77 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::This whole discussion is the dispute resolution. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::You said - "This whole discussion is the dispute resolution."

:::::::My response - It does not seem like a dispute resolution. It seems like a democratic vote to keep or destroy the article. Resolution implies resolving the problem, this appears to seek to destroy content (rather than fix it.)

:::::::That seems very unfair. A bunch of people band together against an article with:

:::::::* four or five months of work

:::::::* tons of research

:::::::* 60 + links to newspapers

:::::::* ~1,350+ page views in less than two months

:::::::* Better and more complete content than many similar pages I have looked at (including one of Heisner's instructors)

:::::::* a person who developed a new martial art style

:::::::But, if there is no other dispute resolution options, I guess that is that. Bushido77 (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:I am curious why the editors who approved the article and subsequently worked on the article are not involved in this discussion. Bushido77 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Bushido admits to writing a book with Heisner."For example, I took the photo of his Wado-Kai certificate and all of them are copyrighted in the book that Mr. Heisner and myself wrote". He does say he sold it at cost to students.Doug Weller talk 06:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Promotional puff piece which over exaggerates the trivial, fakes verification and even provides a commercial link to try sell this pages authors book. If there is any notability in here this hierography hides it under a pile of mundane. Someone without a coi may give it a try later but this needs to go. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• :I thought Wikipedia had a policy to assume good faith? Your comment does not appear to assume good faith. You said "Promotional puff piece which over exaggerates the trivial, fakes verification and even provides a commercial link to try sell this pages authors book."
• :As previously discussed with regards to the book, all of the photos on this page are in that book which Heisner and myself hold the copyrights to. So the book was added for two reasons. 1) It is part of Robert Heisner's legacy (which I have seen on other pages. 2) It validates the copyright owner ship of the photos. I added both the book itself and a link to the copyright office to the article in good faith.
• :Thanks for admitting that there may be notability in this article. In light of the possibility of being notable, I think deleting the article is the wrong decision. Fixing the article would be the correct approach. Bushido77 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• I will recuse myself from !voting delete, but as the original reviewer who declined the draft article, my original opinion on article quality, notability, and NPOV grounds still stands, even though article is in mainspace. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• :I am curious, why did you not delete it originally? Bushido77 (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• ::Deletion and keeping it as a draft are two different things. I am leaning toward draftification (the article is not published and easily available for the public to see) if you promise the community of editors not take this page back to the mainspace (where published articles live) until multiple experienced editors tell you that the article is suitable to be published and give you advice.

:::It is unlikely the article will ever be published because there are very few high-quality sources about Heisner but I think that in the far future, with the help of many editors, it could be published. I cannot promise that this article will not be deleted, but this could be a reasonable compromise if you stop moving this page back into the mainspace. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

::::Being a newbie, I think I moved it back once, because someone told me that was a viable option. I would prefer that to throwing it in the trash. But how do we know the same thing won't happen again?

::::* the article was moved to the mainspace by an editor (not me)

::::* after an editor moved it to mainspace, another eidtor tagged to be deleted

::::* what would prevent that from happening again and again?

::::* would it be again possible that I and others continue to work on it for many more months.

::::* One or more editors approve to move it to the mainspace.

::::* And then one editor tags it again for deletion?

::::Would your recommendation possibly be repeating that cycle? Bushido77 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning towards Draftify. There are several stories (primary sources) about the subject over many years in the local Western New York media. So he approaches notability, but isn’t obviously there. The problems are (1) there are zero secondary sources - as any librarian or legal scholar would define the term - and (2) it’s written very poorly, violating several major rules of The Elements of Style, almost to the point of deleting and starting over. If one of my students in my legal research and writing class at Bryant & Stratton College had written this, it would be covered in Red ink. I have reached out to an expert on this area, and need some time to research it. From a procedural standpoint, there are tendentious arguments to keep that, from my perspective, are weakening their position. If you don’t know the difference between primary and secondary sources, or how to write well, or how to argue in good faith, then perhaps you should not be editing an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• :Thanks for your feedback. I have read the primary and secondary source article two times fully and partially a third time, and honestly I don't see how most of the links would qualify as primary. (There are some primary references added for specific reasons, such as demonstrating copyright ownership.) I will read the primary/secondary sources again.
• :I will also review the elements of style page. Bushido77 (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Delete. I’ve tried to come up with an alternative to deletion, but the arguments to keep, keep getting worse. I reached out to former colleagues who are from the Niagara Falls area, and they have never heard of him. I tried to drop hints, but they were ignored. If you don’t understand what we are not, and you refuse to learn about basic research that a two-year college graduate would know, then I can’t fix it. I’ve saved over 120 articles over the years, and based on my experience and research, this is unsalvageable. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

::::He awarded the key to the city to Hironori Otsuka via Mayor E Dent Lackey. I have no idea who you know in Niagara Falls, NY but many people knew him.

::::I thought one of the rules were to assume good faith - you said "basic research that a two-year college graduate would know"...that does not sound like an assumption of good faith to me. Bushido77 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

::::Maybe legislator Jesse Gooch would be a good person to ask (amongst many others.) Bushido77 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.