Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 10#Yael Meyer

:{{DRV links|Kokondō|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kokondō|article=}}

I believe this page was deleted based on incomplete information and would like to request reconsideration of the decision. It appears the administrator who deleted the page was recently suspended for unrelated reasons, so I have not been able to get a response to my query with him/her.

To address the concerns that this is an irrelevant or defunct martial art, this is indeed a legitimate marital art practiced at a number of schools nationwide. Official website is http://www.kokondo.org and is referenced in the article. I do not have a comprehensive list of dojos, but I know they at least exist in Connecticut, Florida, Washington, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Idaho, Missouri, and Ohio. The reviewer who indicated that it was clustered around a city in Connecticut is incorrect. There are no notable competition successes from students because the art discourages competition and instead focuses on real-world self-defense. It was founded around 50 years ago, which I would argue doesn't qualify as a recent splinter, and has been continuously practiced since. There are at least a dozen other websites on this art. See example links at http://www.kokondomartialarts.com/links.htm. NJG302 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The AFD for this article was closed by Cirt who is no longer an administrator so please don't bash the nom for not discussing it with him first. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Well, yes, we have to endorse Cirt's deletion, but that's not the interesting question here. What we're interested in is whether it's appropriate for the article to be re-created. For me, the most appropriate place to begin a search for sources is in the archives of Black Belt Magazine but I've been unable to find any coverage in it, which is not an encouraging sign. Please could the nominator list the specific sources that he proposes to use?—S Marshall T/C 10:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• I have referenced the website of the International Kokondo Organization above, which is the governing body for this martial art. Information on that site lists the history of the art. Could I request advice in what additional documentation is necessary to make the article pass notability tests? It seems like the arguments against its notability that were cited in the original deletion discussion can be addressed by the arguments above. This is certainly not one of the larger branches of martial art, but it is one that has a nationwide presence and has been around for half a century. NJG302 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Sure. The notability test is called the general notability guideline, and what it means for this article is you need to produce evidence that there has been non-trivial coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Let me explain each of those terms.

  "Non-trivial coverage" means that there must be an article, entry, or news item of some kind that discusses Kokondo. Kokondo need not be the main subject of the article, but it does have to be more than a trivial mention.

  "Reliable sources" mean sources with some kind of editorial control or supervision. It specifically excludes any kind of user-submitted content. Yes, that does mean that for our purposes, Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source.

  "Independent of the subject" means the source cannot be financially or editorially connected with Kokondo in any way, and it can't be a press release of any kind.

  I hope this makes sense to you! This notability rule is why I was asking about Black Belt Magazine; an article in there, or some similar publication, would be exactly the kind of source we need.—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (could possibly one of the other admins who hang around here do this once in a whole, instead of only me; it's not suitable for a bot, because there are some times where it's not needed because it's in userspace, and a few where it wouldn't be permissible, for reasons of BLP or copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Endorese deletion and don't recreate The article had all the shortcomings mentioned in the AfD. In addition, it was the article itself that said "the largest concentration of dojos is near South Windsor, Connecticut". Of course, if suitable references can be found (and I don't mean an article in the local paper) that's another story. I know my search didn't find any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Papaursa (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• There are articles in newspapers that discuss Kokondo and its history. Some of those are listed as links at the bottom of the article. According to Wikipedia guidelines, those appear to be valid sources for establishing notability. Could you please explain why those do not meet the criteria? Here's an example: http://web.archive.org/web/20070928083508/http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/2001/0305/Story4.html . Other links are included at the bottom of the article. NJG302 (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

:This is an article in a local paper about a guy giving a seminar. The reporter interviewed him and wrote down what he said. Personally, I don't find that article to be significant coverage about a martial art. Papaursa (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• It appears to meet the criteria that S Marshall laid out above:

  "Non-trivial coverage" - It is a news article that discusses Kokondo and gives it more than a trivial mention.

  "Reliable sources" - The source is a legitimate newspaper in Washington state with editorial control/supervision.

  "Independent of subject" - The newspaper has absolutely no connection to Kokondo and this was not a press release. NJG302 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• That source looks perfectly good to me. There is no problem with local newspapers as sources.—S Marshall T/C 15:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Article still lacks good sources. A couple of sentences about the organization in a local paper doesn't seem significant to me. It's "drawn from the primordial rites of the Far East" although it was created in 1970 in Connecticut? Really? I hope you can come up with better sources. I have nothing against this art, but I'm not seeing notability yet. Astudent0 (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

:*Yeah, it does need a second source. But notability isn't a matter of opinion; it's entirely objective and evidence-based. Either there are two halfway decent sources or there aren't.—S Marshall T/C 20:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

::I would say it still needs a first source. I don't think that article qualifies as significant coverage (and WP:GNG says "significant coverage" is required). To me, significant is a higher hurdle to clear than non-trivial. I would say our disagreement might indicate that it's not "entirely objective". Papaursa (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I contributed to the deletion discussion previously, but am not familiar with the deletion review process, so I read the instructions. It seems to me that the main issues are: (1) were there errors in process, and (2) is significant new information available? On the first point, I believe that the correct process was followed in the nomination for deletion. On the second point, I have looked again for sources, and the situation appears the same to me—only passing mentions in sources other than primary sources. I do not discount the possibility that the subject might meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, but I have not been able to find convincing support for this. To the initiator of this review (NJG302), I would ask in a respectful manner: what sets Kokondo apart from the many other martial art styles or schools that have a presence in several states or several countries? It is not uncommon for the founder of a school to seek affiliates in other countries and thereby (legitimately) claim an international presence, but this does not in itself make that school notable (since several other schools can make the same claim). If you can clarify what it is that makes Kokondo truly noteworthy (in the same way that, say, Albert Einstein is noteworthy amongst the thousands of physicists who have published international, peer-reviewed articles), you would start to have a case for supporting its inclusion in Wikipedia. Trust this commentary helps. Janggeom (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Here's another local newspaper article that is about Kokondo. http://www.palmcoastobserver.com/news/palm-coast/Sports/12092010123/Martial-arts-leaders-swing-into-academy. This newspaper is based in Florida. Kokondo was established in Connecticut, but I have now found mentions of it in papers in Florida and Washington state.

  This is another third-party site that mentions Kokondo. I can't verify that this is not a form of advertisement for this guy, but it does include a spotlight on a Kokondo dojo in Florida. http://www.samurai-sword-shop.com/connector/jukido-jujitsu-academie-sensei-george-rego/. I will keep looking for other reliable sources. If notability to the level of Einstein is the bar, we're never going to get there. I will also never be able to make the case that this is a art that is as impactful as some of the more mainstream arts. I'm just hoping to make the case that it is of interest to enough people that it would be useful to keep the Wikipedia page up. NJG302 (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Here's evidence that a Kokondo practitioner broke a world record in board breaking: http://www.kokondo.com/world_record.html

  Here's an article in the Hartford Courant on the same event: http://articles.courant.com/1999-04-19/news/9904190313_1_boards-guinness-world-records-scott-cohen

  Here's an article in a student newspaper (Quinnipiac University [CT]): http://www.quchronicle.com/2002/03/jujitsu-course-teaches-self-defense/ NJG302 (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

::Hello NJG302, in case you missed my follow-up post on your talk page, I reproduce that note here: Further to my comments at the deletion review, I encourage you to think about what makes Kokondo noteworthy. For example, was it the first martial art school to achieve something significant (e.g., introducing a new art to an entire country)? I should make clear that my example of Albert Einstein amongst physicists is not intended to suggest that Kokondo needs to be as noteworthy amongst martial art schools as Einstein is amongst physicists, it is just to illustrate that there are many people who could be rightly deserving of recognition, but the underlying argument about notability is that a particular person (Einstein, in my example) is especially worthy of attention. If you can point out (in the deletion review discussion) why Kokondo is noteworthy amongst martial art schools, you should have a strong case for supporting its inclusion in Wikipedia. Trust this advice helps. Janggeom (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

::Looking at the references you have supplied: (1) the Kokondo links page indicates there are at least 13 branches of Kokondo, which is not a lot; (2) the Tri-City Herald article does not indicate anything that sets Kokondo apart from other international martial art schools; (3) the Palm Coast Observer article likewise does not indicate anything particularly notable; (4) the Samurai Sword Shop page is a directory page hosted by a shop, not a journal, magazine, or newspaper; (5) the world record is certified by a local notary who would, possibly, be quite legitimate in certifying a world record within the context of Kokondo, but this is not a world record certified by an independent, notable authority (such as Guinness World Records, mentioned in the Hartford Courant article as not having been contacted yet by Kokondo); and (6) the Quinnipiac Chronicle article does not indicate anything particularly notable. There is nothing in those articles that indicates to me why Kokondo should be considered notable.

::A suggestion: pause for a moment, and imagine that you know nothing about Kokondo. Ask yourself if there is any information about Kokondo available that makes it stand out from the thousands of other martial art schools in existence. From the article as it was, and from all you have written so far, the answer to me is currently a clear 'no.' If there were something particularly notable about Kokondo, I expect it would have come up in discussion by now (e.g., if it was the first martial art school in the USA). Please note that while independent coverage is correlated with notability, it does not imply notability; see the 'presumed' point in the General Notability Guideline. You have pointed out independent coverage, certainly, but that coverage has failed to demonstrate notability as far as I can see. Janggeom (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Janggeom, I can't help wondering if you're confused about how notability works on Wikipedia. You see, NJG203 has proved that Kokondo is notable by providing a list of the reliable sources that have noted it. What you appear to be doing is looking at those sources and asking how they make Kokondo notable, and that illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are in themselves evidence of notability. Do you see now?

This debate could do with being relisted, since new sources appeared quite late in the discussion and have not attracted much comment.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

::::So you say that an article in a local paper that says a local school teaches self-defense is significant coverage of a martial art? I don't. I've seen hundreds of articles like this on local schools, but I don't believe that they're notable. It's clear we have different ideas about what constitutes "significant coverage". Papaursa (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::Papaursa, I'm not saying that this is the most notable martial art in the world. What I'm saying is that realistically, there's enough coverage to justify a short and factual article. The point of notability is to stop people from filling the encyclopaedia with marketing spam. It's not there to stop good faith users from trying to create informative articles.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::I don't mean to come off as extreme, and I have nothing personal against this art, it's just that every dojo I know has articles like this in their local papers and I don't believe they're notable (although they might be based on the level of the bar you've set). If this is a notable international martial art then there should be articles about it or its practioners in something besides local papers. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

::::Hello S. Marshall, thanks for your note. I am open to the possibility of having misunderstood something, but this is what the 'presumption' point in the GNG says: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. As I interpret it, this means that Kokondo might be presumed notable, but this presumption is open to challenge—and in this case, notability does appear to be under challenge. A key point seems to be that the GNG notes that significant coverage in reliable sources does not guarantee that a subject is suitable for inclusion. If you believe I am misunderstanding this, I would genuinely appreciate some expansion to help clarify; thanks. On a different note, comparing back to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kokondō&oldid=444275121 article just before it was deleted], the only new, independent sources supplied by NJG302 appear to be the Palm Coast Observer and Hartford Courant articles. I have commented on those articles already, so I leave it to others to comment further (whether pro or con). Janggeom (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The consensus in the AfD was to delete, and the sources provided here are insufficient to justify a relist. [http://www.quchronicle.com/2002/03/jujitsu-course-teaches-self-defense/ This article] from Quinnipiac Chronicle (published by Quinnipiac University) is mostly about an instructor who teaches a Konkondo course at the university. Kokondō is mentioned several times:

  Sensei Cohen, the course instructor, graduated from Quinnipiac in 1995 with a BS in Health Science. The 28-year-old holds a rank of fourth degree black belt in Jukido Jujitsu, as well as a third degree black belt in Kokondo Karate.

  Along with Kuzushi, two other elements to all Kokondo techniques are also taught. Shorin-ji is one of these elements, which according to Cohen, “refers to points and circles which are the dynamic methods of movement to maximise one’s own power through straight and rounded motion.”

  Cohen studied Jukido Jujitsu under Shihan Paul Arel. Arel is the founder and International Director of the International Kokondo Association and Jukido International Association.

  [http://articles.courant.com/1999-04-19/news/9904190313_1_boards-guinness-world-records-scott-cohen This article] from the Hartford Courant mentions Kokondō once:

  Cohen has studied martial arts since he was 5 and is a black belt in several self-defense disciplines. When he's not chopping blocks he's vice president of Footprints, a Newington shoe store. He is also an instructor at West Hartford Kokondo Academy.

  The articles from both the Quinnipiac Chronicle and the Hartford Courant are primarily about Scott Cohen, who broke a world record. The mentions of Kokondō are used to frame the discussions about Cohen. They may be used to justify an article about Cohen, but not one about Kokondō.

  [http://www.palmcoastobserver.com/news/palm-coast/Sports/12092010123/Martial-arts-leaders-swing-into-academy This article] from the Palm Coast Observer does not mention Kokondō.

  [http://www.samurai-sword-shop.com/connector/jukido-jujitsu-academie-sensei-george-rego/ This interview] from samurai-sword-shop.com is a primary source and cannot be used to establish notability.

  [http://web.archive.org/web/20070928083508/http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/2001/0305/Story4.html This article] from the Tri-City Herald is the most promising. However, the source was present in the article when the AfD was initiated, and a participant above wrote: "This is an article in a local paper about a guy giving a seminar. The reporter interviewed him and wrote down what he said." I believe the source is helpful in verification but not in itself enough to establish notability. Because there is only one reliable source that provides nontrivial coverage about Kokondō, I cannot justify a relist. A relist will likely lead to a second close as "delete" if no other sources are found.

  I recommend that {{user|NJG302}} find at least one or two other reliable sources that specifically discuss Kokondō before renominating the article for review. I am willing to look at the sources if NJG302 wishes to have a second opinion. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

::* To clarify, re: the Palm Coast Observer article, Jukido Jujitsu (mentioned several times in the article) is part of Kokondo -- see the original Wikipedia article for clarification. The Courant article was referenced because someone had previously asked to see a notable achievement by a Kokondo practitioner. I felt this record qualified as that. NJG302 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

:::*According to the Wikipedia article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karate&oldid=451052387 Karate], "In 1970 Paul Arel founded Kokondo Karate which is a sister style of Jukido Jujitsu developed in 1959." Reading the Palm Coast Observer article, I don't see how it establishes notability for Kokondō Karate, which was founded in 1970, 11 years after Jukido Jujitsu was founded. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I can see how this is going and I object to it. I don't think this is what notability is for. Notability is a tool for detecting and removing commercially-motivated marketing spam. It was never meant as a way to excise good faith attempts at writing informative material and I believe that the arguments presented here are a perversion of its intent. The trouble is that now we've created the concept of notability, there are editors who believe it needs to be applied indiscriminately. I think that's a great pity and it's inflicting serious damage on the encyclopaedia. I do wish WP:Editorial judgment wasn't a redlink.

  I also believe the presumption of notability that accompanies the general notability guideline is a strong one, and I believe that Janggeom's take on it is a little misguided. The GNG is, admittedly, simplistic, but the reason it works so well for us is because any editor can look at the sources and judge for themselves whether the GNG is passed. In other words, the GNG is what enables good faith editors to write articles without having to go through a committee process first. If we start using the words "presumption of notability" as a way to remove good faith attempts at informative articles, then editors will no longer be willing to write material because other, perfectly well-meaning editors will insist that the contributions are deleted.

  Please, do not allow this perversion of the GNG's intent to create a New Article Approvals Committee by the backdoor. There are very good reasons why the presumption of notability when there are sources needs to be a strong one, and there are good reasons for confining the notability rules to their original purpose.—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

:*I also disagree with Janggeom's take on the "presumption of notability" in the GNG for the reasons you mention. However, I cannot justify a relist without a solid second source. I believe the article would be deleted again in its current state. I recommend userfication to User:NJG302/Kokondō, so NJG302 can work on the article. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Yael Meyer|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yael Meyer|article=}}

I deleted this article per an AFD discussion last November. Yesterday, User:AndresGottlieb claimed that she's notable and offered to fix the article so I userfied it. He now thinks it's ready for article space but doesn't know how to file a DRV so I'm doing it for him. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• If what's posted in userspace is what is proposed to be the article; there's no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC; self-published albums available at itunes doesn't meet the criteria AFAIK. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• The assertion of notability seems to come from the references to significant coverage in reliable sources, the very first criterion listed at WP:MUSIC. [http://www.sonomastatestar.com/arts-entertainment/rising-indie-star-to-play-sonoma-state-1.1670728 This one] definitely helps, the others I'm not so sure. Ignoring iTunes, YouTube, first-party links and obviously unreliable blogs, we have: an [http://boomboomchik.com/2009/11/album-review-yael-meyer-heartbeat-ep.html album review] from a site that [http://eternalnyc.com/bbc/?page_id=2 appears unreliable from its own description] (not that that stops other articles from using it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=boomboomchik.com]); an [http://blog.mtvmusic-q.mtvi.com/2010/10/26/needle-in-the-haystack-presents-yael-meyer/ MTV blog] which may or may not be reliable under WP:NEWSBLOG; a [http://www.orgullonacional.cl/2010/10/escucha-la-banda-sonora-de-que-pena-tu-vida/ very brief mention] in a source which I know nothing about; and most promisingly [http://www.anormalmag.cl/entrevistas/yael-meyer/ this] interview in a Chilean magazine. I'm not convinced any of this is enough to meet the guideline, but none of it was discussed at the AfD. Restore and relist for further discussion. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• There's also this recent article (in spanish)from the most popular printed newspaper in Chile: http://diario.elmercurio.com/2011/09/09/espectaculos/musica/noticias/3c0a1adf-1dc6-4b47-8811-7379a0448aac.htm , I believe it proves notability according to the first criterion listed at WP:MUSIC Is it enough? Gottlieb (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• It is a few paragraph profile of the artist in anticipation of his upcoming show in Chile. Very much a WP:ROUTINE coverage, which does not give rise to notability; quoting from our notability guideline: "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." The article in El Mercurio is just that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• I understand, is any article mentioning upcoming live presentations, even if it is not the main theme of the article, as is the case, considered "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events"? If you're right on this and the sole existence of this article isn't proof od notability, doesn't the fact that this mainstream chilean newspaper's article mentions the appearence of Yael's songs in 4 TV shows ("Life unexpected" (Liv), "Drop dead diva" (Sony), "Awkward" (MTV) and Private practice" (Sony)), the mention of her participation in a very notable chilean movie (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9_pena_tu_vida) and it's upcoming sequel, or the mention of the Rolling Stone Magazine best 50 albums achievement in 2004 prove notability in terms of the criteria presented in WP:MUSIC? Gottlieb (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• What to do now? Gottlieb (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Move to mainspace [http://www.sonomastatestar.com/arts-entertainment/rising-indie-star-to-play-sonoma-state-1.1670728] and [http://www.anormalmag.cl/entrevistas/yael-meyer/] are reliable sources. [http://diario.elmercurio.com/2011/09/09/espectaculos/musica/noticias/3c0a1adf-1dc6-4b47-8811-7379a0448aac.htm] sounds like it is (I can't see it). That's enough to support inclusion via WP:N. No objection to someone listing at AfD though for further discussion. Hobit (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Kristina Calhoun‎|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Calhoun|article=}}

I'd like this article deleted, please. I didn't create it for it just to be re-directed. I'd rather it be deleted if it can't be its own article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse Clarification, this is a redirect that Me-1234567-Me wants deleted, not an article. While the close was contrary to my opinion in the discussion, the closing nominators decision matched the concensus reached in the discussion, which was redirect and merge any applicable content. While no content has been merged in to the article Yukon Green Party it certainly can be if somebody were so inclined. As it sits right now redirecting Kristina Calhoun (as of today leader and sole candidate of the Yukon Greens) to the Yukon Green Party seems like a good idea. Keeping the redirect with the history intact makes sense to me, if more reliable sources become available, and the Kristina Calhoun were to have a stand alone article, it is best to have the previous version available as a start. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse own close. "I didn't create it for it just to be re-directed. I'd rather it be deleted if it can't be its own article.". Sorry, it doesn't work like that. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse the close was entirely reasonable. Me-1234567-Me could make a request at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion but a policy-based reason for deletion would be needed. I do not presently see such a reason. Thincat (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. The only reason given for deleting the redirect is that the original article's creator wants it deleted. Me-123567-Me, I strongly suggest that you review our policy on ownership of articles. This article stopped being "your article" when you hit the "save" button for the first time. It's now the "community's article" and the community has decided that it should be redirected. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. Although I was certainly of the view that the article was potentially keepable as the leader of a political party, there's absolutely no reason in hell why it should be deleted outright — whether it's a standalone article or a redirect to the party, a political party leader's name should always at least be a blue link of some kind, so that people who search for her at least end up somewhere relevant. It's also worth noting that with the territorial election writs having been issued yesterday for an election in early October, it's also distinctly possible that coverage of Ms. Calhoun as a topic in her own right will increase sufficiently over the next four weeks to support an independent article after all — and if that does happen, then we're far better off being able to build on the existing history rather than having to start over from scratch. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)