Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 13

:{{la|Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/RfC}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/RfC}} cache]|AfD)

I am filing this DRV because no one has responded to my objections about deletion. This page was a content RfC relating to the LaRouche articles on Wikipedia. Prior to its creation, conduct RfCs on Mr. Chip Berlet and Mr. Dennis King were filed. They were deleted as abuse of process by User:El C. After I added a section to the content RfC, Mr. Berlet saw it and felt that it transformed the page into an attack. In retrospect, the name and tone of the section was a error on my part, that I truly regret. For that, I formally apologize to Mr. Berlet for any anguish he may have suffered as a result of this mistake. I am requesting that the page be recreated without the disputed part to allow discussion on the improvement of the LaRouche articles to continue.

Respectfully Yours;

Dagomar 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Dagomar 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, I see no procedural error here, especially given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=151094386#Turning_page_RFC_into_a_virtual_Arbcom_hearing this]. --Coredesat 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:That was spawned by one section which can and should be stricken. Barring the success of this review in overturning the deletion, would I then be allowed to reinitiate the RfC? Dagomar 07:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, this appears to be an attack page rather than an actual RFC. Also, objections to deletion should be brought here, to DRV, rather than wherever else you had in mind. >Radiant< 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:This was never meant to be an attack page. As per the undelete policy I have tried to bring this up with the deleting admin. Dagomar 07:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

::No, what I mean is that you should bring the LaRouche pages (that you wish undeleted) up for review here. This meta-page isn't useful. >Radiant< 08:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I wouldn't have a problem with the page being undeleted, so long as it were userfied. If it's delisted, it shouldn't be in any namespace other than your own, and only as a sort of notebook. The Evil Spartan 00:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|myDataBus}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:myDataBus}} cache]|AfD)

This page was deleted as advertising, despite the fact that it was modeled after similar Wikipedia entries for a variety of other free file storing / hosting / service websites:

• Box.net
• YouSendIt
• Sendspace
• Megaupload
• Twango
• RapidShare
• Files-Upload.com
• del.icio.us
• FileFront
• reddit
• Netvouz
• Newsvine
• Tailrank.com

Since the deletion, I have also found two third-party sources to verify my claims: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=MyDataBus&hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8] Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Ollie990 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've also found, possibly [http://www.zoho.com/news/zoho_api_gain_traction.html]. Many of the sites online don't appear to be reliable, or sound spammy enough that it appears that there is some sort of conflict of interest. However, I say overturn and list at AFD (without access to the original page) - was probably not insalvageably spammy, and author should have a chance to give more sources. The Evil Spartan 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse contained long lists of features and was primarily sourced from the company's own website. On the other hand two independent sources were linked so an AfD wouldn't be unreasonable (though I would still argue for deletion). Eluchil404 20:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak overturn with no prejudice re: listing at AfD. It's not written in an unsalvageably promotional way, and seems to have some claim to notability with the links to third party reviews. --Ginkgo100^talk 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, without prejudice to letting an AfD test its notability. It did have a somewhat promotional tone, but I wouldn't classify it as "blatant advertising." The claims were, for the most part, factual. An {{ad}} tag would be more appropriate in my opinion. — xDanielx^Talk 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse, it was blatant advertising. No prejudice against writing an actual article here, but undeletion is not going to help there. >Radiant< 08:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

::If the myDataBus page is going to remain deleted despite my third party sources, then I would respectfully ask that the advertisement-tinged Wikipedia entries I listed above be considered for deletion as well. I am not asking for favoritism here, just an even playing field. Ollie990 13:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

::*Do note that I said "without prejudice". The other advertisements are already under consideration for deletion. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. >Radiant< 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:::*Radiant, are you sure you read the article? Why delete a thorough, descriptive article when we can just tone down the somewhat promotional language slightly while preserving the factual content that no one would want to reproduce otherwise? — xDanielx^Talk 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:::**Well, we're not supposed to be a web directory. There's a plethora of file hosting services and I fail to see what's so significantly different about them that we should have articles on them all, as opposed to a simple list in a main article. >Radiant< 09:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:::***I don't know whether it's notable, but a large number [http://www.google.com/search?q=myDataBus Google hits] and a very decent [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmydatabus.com Alexa ranking] of around 5,000 I think it's worthy of further investigation. — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. G11 says "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." There was actually legitimate data in this article, and deleting the ad-like sections would have been a more suitable course of action. ugen64 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse/Userfy as is often the case, after deletion more information is posited for keeping - restore to author's user space so s/he can get it ready for prime time and then move it to mainspace, it doesn't belong there in its most recent condition. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|List of people known as father or mother of something}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:List of people known as father or mother of something}} cache]|AfD)

14 keeps / 11 deletes; and closed as “delete”? (what math am I missing here?). This page was a very core article in the science articles. This was one of the most ridiculous vfd’s I have seen. I will bring this issue to the science talk pages to get concerned editors involved. Sadi Carnot 16:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I have no opinion on the article in question, but the closing admin's explanation for his close as he did is quite well reasoned. AfD is not a vote, so 14-11 is meaningless if the keep !votes don't provide adequate reasoning. And note that User:Sadi Carnot is canvassing for votes at WP:AN. Corvus cornix 16:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::Comment (to Corvus): I posted to interested parties, namely the various science projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Science and two science admins. For those of us who read science books at a great rate, there are full chapters and sections written on who is the father or mother of something, e.g. Hippocrates “father of medicine”, Lavoisier “father of chemistry”, Claude Shannon “father of information theory”. I wasn’t a main editor on this article, but can’t believe it was even considered for deletion (a vote that I didn’t know about). Science editors are going to be the ones who know the importance of these terms and this article. Simply because the article didn't have enough references is no reason to close as delete. --Sadi Carnot 17:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree here, with a point that science editors should have kept the other stuff out, and moved it to a more tightly focused title. This title was always going to get out of control. About the canvassing, you have been saying "please help us restore". If you are going to leave notes like that, it is best to be objective. Carcharoth 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Yes, I agree about being objective, and tight focus, etc., but similar to ragesoss, I can’t even believe this is happening. Someone sneaks an historical article vfd through the nets because an article lacks a few references? --Sadi Carnot 17:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I also didn't notice this until it was deleted, and in a moment of weakness and outrage at the interpretation of the discussion, I tried to unilaterally undelete this out of process. Needless to say, process won out. There's a difference between weighing the force of difference arguments and simply choosing the one argument a closing admin thinks is the best; the latter is what happened here, and I don't think any close but "no consensus" would be legitimate. Furthermore, I find Carcharoth's argument (which the closing admin relied on) to be a twisting of policy. This page was not original research.--ragesoss 16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• My distinction, which I should have made clearer, was that you will easily find tightly focused lists of "Father of Topic X", but you will rarely (if ever) find a published, reputable list that attempts to lump all the lists together. My comment, if I'd paid attention, would probably have become a split into more tightly-focused lists. But I lost track of that debate and when I returned, it had been closed. I will gladly help build up a science and technology list. Carcharoth 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that refocusing and/or splitting the list would improve it.--ragesoss 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Closing admin correctly interpreted the strength of the arguments and not just the number of the arguments. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a difficult one. While the sheer numbers say keep, the arguments are largely both the same as one another and specious. I recall looking over this at the time and being very unsure. The delete arguments are generally more convincing, and numbers aren't the be-all and end-all of consensus. SamBC(talk) 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll endorse this. The AFD is a discussion, and not voting. When I close an AFD, I will sometimes discount, or assign less weight to certain arguments. Navou ^banter 16:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. A reasonable statement explaining the close was given in the AFD. Friday (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Limited overturn - I commented on the original AfD, and I see my comment may have influenced the close. I've now been reviewing the original AfD, and the arguments pointing at List of premature obituaries and List of HIV-positive people as good examples of featured lists have convinced me that some form of list for science and technology pioneers and inventors is needed. This list would be a good start, though I still think some better criteria than "father of" could be found. Suggest restoring a copy of the article(s) to a subpage at a suitable WikiProject (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science), to allow a science-based list to be extracted from this. This will make more sense than lumping together things such as baby carrot, grunge, microcarrot, wargaming, the American political cartoon, and the other similar entries. If it would be easier, overturn, restore, edit out the non-science and non-technology ones (putting them on a new list somewhere on a talk page), and move to a better title (eg. List of science and technology pioneers). Would you believe, in the time it took me to write this, six other people got in first? :-) Carcharoth 17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• List of inventors is a similar list that could do with some attention. Carcharoth 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from deleting admin. Cited sources have to actually be about the claim being made. That has always been the problem with this list--it uses sources to point to a turn of phrase, not an idea. I have no objection to Carcharoth's compromise as long as whatever claim the list makes is actually backed up by the sources. I have said many times that I am happy to provide the content to anyone interested in starting over with a different methodology, and I'm sure any other admin would as well. Chick Bowen 17:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Could you clarify what you mean here by 'turn of phrase' and 'idea', with an actual example? Carcharoth 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• A good example of a bad source in this list would be [http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/ABC/Articles/Register6-95.html this article], which does not actually claim that Atanassoff would better be given the title of "father of computer" than any of the various other people, but merely uses the phrase in eulogizing him. One thing that would greatly help is to organize the list by topic, not by name. Chick Bowen 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::Comment: (about sources and prominence of parentage) note the opening paragraph of chemistry as well as two sections in Talk:Chemistry to see that “parentage” is a major issue in science. This is one of many examples to justify a central page on “fathers” or “mothers” of something. As to sources, I am always willing to add references (10-40 in some cases) to someone who questions the validity of a science article and will gladly add at least 10 to this one. --Sadi Carnot 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• AFD is not a vote, so the numbers are of limited significance. They are not irrelevant, because the weight of agreement is relevant to consensus. But there are policy based arguments that would override any contrary consensus (the canonical example is a copyright violation). The closer didn't do a great job of articulating what policy based reason for deletion he was citing. However, one overriding policy is WP:NOR. In the years of this article's existence, and the 221 different footnotes, we see, as far as I can tell, zero secondary sources about being the father/mother of something (rather than primary sources that use the phrase in describing their topic). This is the argument that Carcharoth made and that the closing admin closed on. In other words, the deletion was based on an argument from overriding policy. So we endorse deletion. Absent such secondary sources, any article made from a subset of this list would also violate WP:NOR. So it should not be userfied until and unless such secondary sources are found for a topical area. GRBerry 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::*Honestly, I haven’t seen this article in a few months, so I can’t remember what the references looked like (and I barely edited it, but a few times); but the fact that we’re even have a “references needed” discussion for an obvious topic of historical value clarifies that this entire deletion discussion is a misuse of Wikipedia redtape (i.e. deleting per WP:NOR or no references, or whatever, etc.). --Sadi Carnot 17:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::*Have a look at [http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_known_as_father_or_mother_of_something the Google cache] (also linked at the start of each DRV). Carcharoth 17:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:*Oh, you won't have to look far to find lots of science and technology "father and mother of" lists. That has been done before. And actually, most good sources will mention why xyz is considered father/mother of in the same breath as stating it. It is the why that needs to be sourced here, not the is. What doesn't need to be sourced is a general discussion of the concept of father/mother - that would be for a different article altogether (something like History of the father/mother trope). Carcharoth 17:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong overturn: O.K. I just looked at the [http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_known_as_father_or_mother_of_something cached-version] (which I hadn't seen) of the article and there are 221 references and the closing comment was “list as it stands is essentially original research”? Are you kidding me? These terms are common trivia questions (basic human knowledge); there’s hardly anything original about this. How can an article with over 200 (different) references be deleted as original research? We need to overturn this article deletion. --Sadi Carnot 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:*Note: also, if we are going to rename the article, I would suggest People named as the founder, father, or mother of something. In Bevan Ott and Julian Goates 2000 textbook Chemical Thermodynamics: Principles and Applications, for example, we find: “Gilbert Lewis, Merle Randall, and Edward Guggenheim must be considered as the founders of modern chemical thermodynamics.” Now, for students of chemical thermodynamics, there is great meaning in sentences such as this. --Sadi Carnot 18:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion. While good arguments for deletion in the debate, it is absolutely clear that there is no consensus for deletion from this discussion. I agree with others that this article does need attention and I like some of the suggestions for renaming it. -MrFizyx 18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn — did I miss where we started deleting potentially good articles instead of just fixing them? Several solutions were presented and ignored in the original AfD, such as sorting by topic (alphabetizing makes no sense whatsoever for this kind of list) and paring down entries with stronger inclusion criteria (which would presumably include there being more than one random source calling someone the father of something but rather a sourced good reason for the name). It seems like the latter directly addresses the closing admin's concern. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse Deletion - Sweet Jesus on a Pogo Stick, how many times is this oddball article going to keep coming back from the dead? I called for a post-deletion redirect to be deleted, then an admin arbitrarily recreates the page. There is nothing that ties this disparate list of people together other than the broad synthesis of sources that use similar terminology to describe a notable person in a field of study. Not that that's really relevant, as deletion review is not AfD Part II. That the nominator does not like the AfD result is not a reason to overturn an article deletion. The AfD closer judges the weight of the argument and considers the applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines; it is not a vote. Tarc 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. I thank Sadi for pointing me towards this discussion. I find it outrageous that the vote was interpreted as delete. I always was under the assumption that when a few editors were in favor of keep then it was to be keep. A vote of 10 keep and 90 delete in my mind is still keep. This allows 10 enthusiastic science editors to defend a science article against 90 Startrek/Harry Potter/manchester United fans. I find this proceeding very disturbing and I will take action against the administrators in question. I find the list extremely intriguing and an excellent starting point for exploring wikipedia, in that sense lists like this one has a status similar to that of portals (or are we going to mass-delete portals next? portals are not very encyclopedic....) V8rik 20:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Your view of Wikipedia consensus is quite out-of-line with standard practice...the numbers are secondary to the arguments presented and admins are given a few degrees of freedom to interpret arguments and weigh policy considerations. The rest of your comment is just a muddled pile of logical fallacies. And how, pray tell, will you "take action" against the closing admin? — Scientizzle 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, we have admins arguing among themselves over this and at the same time admins are of course infallable. Wiki is in much more trouble than I thought. V8rik 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse Had I voted in the AfD I would have recommended deletion based on a rationale similar to the closing admin's comments (the list is a catalogue of individuals that have nothing in common other than some source that claims that said individual was a founder of anything). I don't like the canvassing, and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_known_as_father_or_mother_of_something&action=edit out-of-process restoration] wasn't good, either...That said, I'm classifying my endorsement as "weak" because "no consensus" would have been an understadable close. Plus, I think there's a tiny chance that some of the suggestions in the AfD & this DRV might address the major concerns raised in the deltion discussion. — Scientizzle 20:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I did some searching, and this [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22father+of%22+science&btnG=Search Google Scholar] search for "father of" and "science", brought up some interesting results. I still think that if this is restricted to science and technology, there is potentially a very good article here. Carcharoth 21:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• I think this should be restored as it should have been closed as "No consensus". I also suggest that it be renamed and focus on science and technology. However I do not agree with the comment "This page was a very core article in the science articles". It is just a list of rather unrelated items. The key use of "father of X" should be on the article on "X" and even there it is overdone in some cases. "Founder" is a much better term. --Bduke 22:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment although WP is not a court of law, process seems to be trumping what's right, so a good wikilawyer would point out that the only reason to overturn cited was the vote outcome and since AFD is not a vote, the review is procedurally flawed. But I'm not a wikilawyer, and it looks like this article will be resurrected despite it being an unmaintainable mess: so many people have been called the father or mother of something by so many people that many things have more mothers and fathers than would be biologically possible for living organisms. It's very little different than a "bests" list - best beaches, best flavors of ice cream, best left-handed tiddlywinks players from Springfield.... As we're counting score here: Process N+1, Results 0. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. The closing admin made a bad call. There was no consensus in the AfD discussion, which is why he had to justify his "delete" decision at such length. I quite agree with the admin who restored, whether it were "in Process" or not—as the discussion was closed on the basis of admin discretion (a concept I heartily agree with), it can also be reopened on that basis. As such, I also support Carcharoth's suggestion that it be restored immediately onto a WikiProject subpage so that it might be edited in line with the suggestions which have been made. Physchim62 (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn While AFD is not a vote, there was no consensus. Both sides presented many arguments, both strong and weak. For this to be a "delete", more than half of the "keep" opinions would have had to be entirely discounted. That should only be done if the comments are by SPAs/sockpuppets/meatpuppets or the comments are totally out of line with policy/guideline. None of that was the case here. However, the article needs lots of work. It needs a better name and stricter inclusion criteria. I would suggest that only people referred to as "father" or "mother" by multiple sources independent of eachother and the person or by a major scientific journal be included. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - With due respect to Chick Bowen, I think his preferencing of arguments was somewhat arbitrary and out of place. The WP:NOR-based justification for deletion was, at best, very fuzzy and contentious, and so should have been left to the community instead of the closing admin. Editors have to evaluate whether a certain source is sufficient to deem X the father/mother of Y based on the credibility of the source and the strength of the claim. "Drexler is the father of nanotechnology because of his significant contributions" is debatable since figures like Feynman made significant and pertinent advancements before him. "Derrida is the father of deconstruction" is much more agreeable since he coined the term and is obviously most heavily associated with it. There are various criteria to consider - did the person coin the term used to describe the field? how significant were their contributions relative to others? did the person's contributions predate other significant contributions? It inevitably requires some editorial judgment, but that's not so much original research as simple judgment of well-sourced facts, and we can't really get around having to think for ourselves when editing. Editorial discretion can be minimized by establishing clear criteria on the talk page. At the very least, it's a very questionable NOR violation and thus not good grounds for overriding consensus. — xDanielx^Talk 08:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, AFD is not a vote count. "People who have been called by anyone at all in the media" is not an encyclopedic topic; WP:SYNTH. >Radiant< 08:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Obviously the criteria would be stricter this time round, with the title changed to focus on scientists and inventors. And not just any old newspaper or website, but a reputable biography, obituary, journal, or (best) a book on the history of science. If such lists are not allowed, then WP:LIST and WP:TRIVIA need to be revised, as both talk about Wikipedia editors using such criteria to keep out trivial stuff, while also using such criteria to produce a focused list (be it a whole article or a subsection of an article). Carcharoth 09:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Specifically WP:LIST#Criteria for inclusion in lists, and WP:TRIVIA#Not all lists are trivia sections. Carcharoth 09:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Though there are also good points made at Wikipedia:Overlistification, specifically, Wikipedia:Overlistification#Over-extensive Lists. Radiant, would you say that as titled, this is an example of an over-extensive list, and would you say that narrowing the focus would address both this concern and the OR concerns? Carcharoth 11:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Hm, let me think on that for a bit. My first impression is that it is "unrelated subjects with related names" (or in this case, titles) as stated on WP:OCAT. Yes, I'm aware this isn't a cat :) >Radiant< 12:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete, and the problems with the article can be fixed by editing, renaming, or splitting, not deleting. --Itub 09:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - closing admin is completely correct in the reasoning for the close. Policy concerns raised by those in favor of deletion were not adequately addressed by the keepers and the arguments raised on both sides were properly addressed in the closing statement. As has been noted, AFD is not a vote so the fact that keep had a numerical majority is not enough to save the article. Otto4711 12:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Consensus can change, and articles can be rewritten and improved. Also, AfD and DRV are not about deletion per se (or about 'saving' articles), but are about whether an article is salvageable, and whether any new information has come to light. Undeletion and userfication, or in this case restoring to a group of users, would precede such rewriting. I belive this addresses all your concerns. Carcharoth 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

::*While consensus certainly can change, I do not believe that it did change in the course of this AFD or in the few weeks between the improper failure to delete this article and this DRV. The article is not salvageable because there is no way that it will ever be restricted to "only times that someone really important calls somebody the father of something" and no new information has come to light. I believe this answers your attempt to address my concerns by illustrating that you did not in fact allay them. Otto4711 14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:::*Sorry, I forgot to mention that the article would be renamed. I agree that "father of" is not workable, but I do think that the information carefully placed on this list could be migrated to the various timeline articles. DRV is not just about restoring article de novo, it is also about retrieving information that can be used elsewhere. Carcharoth 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Why would a science-related list be any better than one that includes fathers of jazz or traffic systems? Isn't this just creating a more-focused synthesis? The point of a list is to group together things that have a quality in common. The commonality of this list is extremely tenuous, turning on a common phraseology, not to mention that being "first" in a field of study doesn't necessarily mean that that person is more noteworthy than their successors. Deleting this list doesn't lessen the significance of Albert Einstein's or Dmitri Mendeleev's contributions. But seeing their names side-by-side does not increase a reader's understanding of either man's contributions to their respective fields. Again, being "first" is not rally a defining characteristic, and the judgment by the AfD closer that the association amongst them was loose and common is a sound one. Tarc 12:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• In science, priority (being the first to discover something) is most definitely a defining characteristic. Have a look at Timeline of scientific experiments and Timeline of scientific discoveries. I now admit that "father of" is probably not workable, but the argument here is that there are a lot of potentially useful sources and references that could be examined and moved to a different location. That is not an unreasonable request. Carcharoth 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Carcharoth believes that there are secondary sources for a science focused list. If there are such sources, then an article/list constructed using them would not suffer the WP:NOR/WP:SYN problem that the unbounded list had. The same would be true for any other topic where there are secondary sources. GRBerry 12:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• The best I've been able to find is [https://www2.carolina.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?jdeAddressId=&catalogId=10101&storeId=10151&productId=50041&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=1283%7C1298%7C2078 this] - called Pioneers in Science Set - "176–208 pages. This unique 8-volume collection profiles the people behind the science. Each volume consists of 10 biographical sketches of pioneers in a particular scientific discipline, including information about their childhood, how they began their scientific career, their research, and enough scientific information for the reader to appreciate their discoveries and contributions....". Finding actual "lists of "father of" people" has been a bit harder, as reputable sources don't really do that sort of list. Maybe we could do something like Pioneers in science and technology in some sort of timeline form? A bit like Timeline of aviation and the more readable subsections, such as Timeline of aviation - 19th century. We do already have :Category:Technology timelines, with such timelines as Timeline of invention - plenty of the "father of" people are listed at such timelines. For science, there is :Category:Science timelines, which has things like Timeline of scientific experiments, and Timeline of scientific discoveries. These are all more informative than a "father of" list, so I'm now thinking that restoration should only be to retrieve the references and to move them to the relevant timelines. It takes time to work out what needs to be done with some material, which is why I find drive-by AfD and DRV voting so annoying. Discussion really can lead to new ideas and possibly a better way forward. Carcharoth 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete the article. The OR/synthesis argument is a weak one, in my view. What original position was advanced in the article? What is the synthesis here? There is none. I think a good argument revolving around WP:NOT#DIR was made, but even that was challenged (perhaps best by Haemo: "the concept of being the 'father/mother of something' is a noteworthy one, and an important attribute of a number of historical figures"). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion major Deja Vu. Keep !votes weren't policy-based or, IMO, convincing. Admin discretion seemed reasonable. Perhaps add a comment for "allow the possiblity of a better article in the future?" Bulldog123 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-naming/splitting suggestion

The consensus seems to be overturn (11 votes) [vs. endorse (6 votes)]; thus a naming suggestion: if the article were to be split, I might suggest:

• people named as founder, father, or mother of something (science)
• people named as founder, father, or mother of something (miscellaneous)

In this manner, we could separate undisputed classics (such as Hippocrates “father of medicine”) with unrelated, comparatively trivial names (such as Frank W. Cyr “father of yellow school bus”). Moreover, many subjects in science have more than one un-disputed “father or founder”, see (Google search results for): [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=father+of+scientific+method father of scientific method], which lists: Aristotle, Galileo, Descartes, or the less likely candidate Alhazen (currently listed in the article). To solve this, we could put the subject in the left column, e.g. chemistry, and list the founder/father in the middle column, e.g. Lavoisier, Boyle, Dalton, Jabir Ibn Haiyan. Similarly, as mentioned above modern chemical thermodynamics has three founders. In this manner, the reader can see and compare the people and references side-by-side. The way the current article is, we have two or more listings for “father of chemistry”, “father of scientific method”, etc., but the reader doesn’t know this unless he or she plays the game memory with the list. --Sadi Carnot 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Opinion summary: User:ragesoss, User:Carcharoth, User:Bduke, and User:Itub like the splitting idea; User:Chick Bowen and User:Laura Scudder agree that it should be organized by topic; User:MrFizyx likes the renaming suggestion; and User: Physchim62 suggests that it be reopened into a Wikiproject subpage to begin working on some of these proposals. --Sadi Carnot 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Would you mind removing me from the list supporting the split you have proposed? I would support the information being used in a heavily annotated paragraph-style list-article, such as Pioneers in science and technology, but not a table-list under an unwieldy title such as you are proposing. People named as founder, father, or mother of something (science) is far too long a title to be readily comprehensible, and the 'miscellaneous' one is bad as I don't think miscellaneous should be used as a qualifier in Wikipedia article (or list) titles. My favoured solution is still to restore the information somewhere outside of article space, and to work to move the references to a timeline article where the "father of" references would be very useful. See Timeline of invention, Timeline of scientific experiments, and Timeline of scientific discoveries. Maybe a case could be made for Timeline of science disciplines? That could show when each discipline is thought to have emerged, and would be a natural home for "father of" references. Carcharoth 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• O.K. user:Carcharoth wants to move all the information to timelines. There’s already plenty of science/technology pioneers timelines. I’ve worked on or completely written several timelines, timeline of chemistry, history of quantum mechanics, history of thermodynamics, timeline of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and random processes and merging this “father-mother” list to random timelines isn’t going to help anything. There’s a big difference between being called the “father of something” vs. being a component in a timeline as a pioneer. My consensus, aside from your view, is that most editors want to re-open the article, but have it cleaned of trivial views and such. As for the name, my suggestions may not be perfect (we might just as well keep it the same name) but your suggestions are basically names to merge the list into some kind of history article (but this has already been done). --Sadi Carnot 17:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Well, I think Timeline of science disciplines would accomodate the same material, and would be more informative than a rather pedantic "father of" list. The "father of" list loses the vital context of dates, which a timeline would provide. The basic idea would be to give approximate dates, with sources, for when the different science disciplines began to emerge. The extra context and discussion (from secondary sources) of what "father of" means in different cases, would tell the reader far more than a simple list ever would. Carcharoth 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:*Just a note to register my strong opposition to both the assumption that keep and split is going to be accepted and to the proposed new articles, which would suffer from all of the same problems as the original. Otto4711 19:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

::*How can you say that when you haven't seen the new articles? There is a presumption at DRV that useful content can be restored to user space for editors to work on and to improve. There are numerous admins who make quite clear that they will undelete and userfy material if someone requests it in good faith, and that a formal DRV is not required for this. No amount of opposition will change that. I agree with you that the current format is not viable, but where I disagree with you is the idea that "delete at all costs" is the correct solution. There is useful content there (mainly the references) that could enhance other articles. Carcharoth 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn view and organise by topic splitting if appropriate. The page is interesting, encyclopedic and mostly sourced. I don't see a clear consensus for deletion. This is an instance where we fix and improve rather than dump. Bridgeplayer 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse I think Otto put it best. AfD is not a vote, and the issues with synthesis have not been addressed, specifically compiling many dozen passing mentions of a term into a single set of information. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - AfD is not a vote, and neither is DRV. It seems awfully presumptuous to plan this as if the DRV is going to result in a overturn because of a tally. Tarc 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - Consensus was not followed, and the closing administrator's logic was not convincing enough to outweigh consensus. AFD is not a vote, but we say that to avoid meatpuppetry and people with bad policy arguments. But the policy arguments were sound. WP:LIST also allows this to exist. The Evil Spartan 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The closing admin did a very poor job of evaluating the arguments, if he was going to use his discretion to judge what arguments were policy based. Essentially every one of them was some version of THISSOUNDSSILLYTOME. I would have thought so too, if I had not looked at the actual contents of the article. We're judging the subject, not the title. the reason for not judging on this basis is of course, that everything on WP sounds silly to some of us, and we build the encyclopedia by accommodating us all. This was not a time to judge in the disregard of consensus. All encyclopedia articles are the collection of selected material, and sometimes it takes a knowledgable person to do the collecting. The majority of those at the Afd understood this. the closer did not. He judged by what arguments appealed to him, and said as much, DGG (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Susan Chesler}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Susan Chesler}} cache]|AfD)

Improper speedy deletion. This was deleted in February as a PROD. It was recreated by original creator with substantionally the same content on August 12, which seems to me to be the same as contesting the PROD after closure. It was then tagged as "db-bio". I removed the tag and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valrith&oldid=150815120 explained] my reasoning to the tagger. The tagger retagged it and it was deleted as an A7. The claim that the subject is a voice actress in a nationally televised animated show is an assertion of notability. This should be kept or go to AfD. Dsmdgold 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn if there was, indeed, a claim that the subject is a voice actress in a 'major' TV show (unless it was a one-off), then A7 was not valid. SamBC(talk) 16:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• The entire content of the article was "Susan Chesler is an American voice actress. She is most known for her role as Cassidy in W.I.T.C.H.. {{tl|stub}}". Yep, it has an assertion of notability. No, it isn't worth the time to discuss much. Overturn and ignore. GRBerry 17:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and probably send to AfD. There is no point in putting back a speedy after a good faith removal--it should have been sent to afd directly, it there is anything like a reasonable argument. DGG (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the speedy deletion due to claim to notability. --Ginkgo100^talk 21:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn send straight to afd, the assertion of notability is on the weak side but that can be hashed out at afd. Carlossuarez46 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This asserted importance. Get it right or get used to getting overturned. --W.marsh 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn without prejudice to listing on AfD - I'm convinced by Dsmdgold's summary of events that the speedy deletion was improper. — xDanielx^Talk 08:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Jocelyne Couture-Nowak}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Jocelyne Couture-Nowak}} cache]|AfD|DRV1|AfD2|DRV2|AfD3|AfD4)

Admin showed poor judgment. If one strikes WP:ATA arguments from both sides (especially WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:NOTAGAIN, etc), there are still twice as many opinions advocating either delete or redirect. Further, admin's treatment was superficial; admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein#Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak asserts] admin does "not think a discussion of individual arguments is worth the time," an attitude that resulted in a superficial treatment of the discussion; on numbers, not merits. Process was not followed. Pablosecca 07:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:Comment It probably should, for the sake of clarity, be observed that it is the closure of this article's fourth AfD that is at issue here. That AfD, FWIW, provides a decent recaptiulation of the procedural history of the article. Joe 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak endorse closure, while the nominator is right about most of the keep arguments having little weight, a "redirect" outcome in an AFD does not result in deletion of the page history, which sort of makes it like a "keep" outcome. If the arguments to delete are just as strong as those to redirect, there is no consensus. If all else fails, propose a merge instead. --Coredesat 08:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:Comment I must respectfully say it's ludicrous to suggest that redirect/merge and delete are materially different. I think everyone who advocates delete here would have no problem with her name leading to the VTech victims page; it's the unnecessary article that is opposed. To have this fail on the basis you describe would be falling victim to a hopeless semantics game. Pablosecca 14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::The important difference merge and delete is the if content from one article is merged into another, the GFDL requires that edit history of the merged content be kept. Deleting an article also deletes its edit history. "Merge and delete" cannot be done together. Dsmdgold 15:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as closing admin; I'll refer to my closing rationale and to my discussion with Pablosecca for the reason why. My treatment of the matter was not superficial. My statement that a discussion of individual arguments is not worth the time referred to the fact that entering into a post-AfD dispute about whether each and every one of the several dozen arguments ought to have been dismissed or not would have been a massive waste of time. Sandstein 09:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - The closing admin didn't just "count" and weighed and valued the arguments thoroughly. --Oakshade 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I don't see an argument for deletion from overriding policy, either myself, made in AFD4, or made in the nomination here. Without such an argument, the issue is whether there is a consensus for deletion or not. To avoid the problem of asking the other parent, recent prior discussions have to be evaluated in determining consensus. Looking at this, plus the history, makes it clear that there is not a consensus for deletion, either in AFD4 on its own or on AFD4+AFD3 or on ... nope, no consensus for deletion exists. GRBerry 17:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse A reasonable close. There simply is no consensus. (And the press coverage continues, so I think there will be less and less reason to try to delete it in the future). DGG (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - 13 keep/14 delete pretty clearly means no consensus. WP:ATA is not a policy, and I think several parts of the essay are poorly reasoned. In any case, I think a neutral reader would disagree with Pablosecca on which arguments fell under arguments to avoid. By the numbers, there was no consensus. By the arguments, Sandstein was the third consecutive closer to conclude that there was no trump card. I would give more weight to the numbers than to the closer's analysis in this case absent a clear policy violation, but either way I think it's a fair no consensus closure. — xDanielx^Talk 08:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. As this AfD showed, and as the ones before it showed, there is no consensus on the matter. Monthly/bi-monthly renominations are not likely to change that. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:{{la|Kenneth Wapnick}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Kenneth Wapnick}} cache]|AfD)

Original nominator permanently banned for disruptive Afd activities Scott P. 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion- Relist article (New information that was not discussed in the original Afd is brought to light below.) This nomination for deletion was first made by one former user Ste4k who was subsequently permanently banned from Wiki for his divisive and disruptive behavior regarding the group of articles related to ACIM. This user made nominations for deletion for nearly every ACIM related article in the summer of 2006, intentionally using only partial and misleading logic in his nominations. He also attempted to have the main ACIM article essentially deleted by creating a rival POV fork article, and by placing numerous derogatory templates on the main ACIM article. By the time that his behavior pattern had become apparent to all, much damage had already been done, one of the casualties of his behavior being the deletion of the Kenneth Wapnick article.

:A few points of notability that were not even touched on in the Afd discussion were:

:# The fact that Dr. Wapnick is the author of over 130 books.

:# A Google search for "Kenneth Wapnick" brings up 32,900 links. Apparently the rest of the Internet community feels he is notable enough to write extensively about.

:# The fact that Dr. Wapnick is one of the three primary editors of ACIM (a book that has sold over 1.5 million copies and a book that is considered by many to be a spiritual classic.) While Afd discussion contributor Andrew Parodi noted this, this fact was seen as "non-notable" for some unstated reason by the other Afd contributors.

:These three facts alone seem to me to warrant the inclusion in Wikipedia of an article on Dr. Wapnick. It appears to me that user Ste4k may have intentionally omitted these three facts from his nomination, and that subsequent contributors to the Afd discussion may have not been thorough enough in their review of the Afd discussion to have uncovered these very notable and relevant facts. Unfortunately, some of the regular contributors to the ACIM article group were not brought into or made aware of this Afd until it was too late.

:While the old article may need some work to bring it up to the newer, stricter standards of documentation for Wikipedia articles that seemed to evolve in the summer of 2006, but I don't feel that the need for improvement in documentation should have been suitable reason to have the article deleted at the request of the now banned Ste4k. I would very much appreciate it if you could please either reinstate this article or at least give a good reason why the author of 130 books, who pulls 32,000 Google hits, and the editor of a significant spiritual classic is viewed as 'unnotable' by Wikipedia standards.

:-Scott P. 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion- I think it goes without saying that there should be a page about him. On the A Course In Miracles page there is a reference to ACIM being the most obvious choice for a single volume book for the New Age movement. Many people consider Ken Wapnick the most important ACIM teacher. The book Disappearance of the Universe shot to #2 on Amazon.com's sales list, and this book lists Wapnick as ACIM's most important teacher, predicting that he will be an important figure in world history. That has yet to be seen, but what has been seen is that ACIM is an important spiritual movement (hence the encyclopedia article), and Ken is perhaps THE most important teacher in the movement. Additionally, Ken was one of the central figures in the court case that resulted in the overturning of an early manuscript of A Course In Miracles. People of much less note have been given Wikipedia articles. Lastly, I think it should be remembered that the Wapnick article was deleted in a deletion frenzy of all ACIM-related articles. That frenzy was led by an editor who has since been discovered to have had a great anti-ACIM bias. -- Andrew Parodi 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Copied from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ezeu#Request_to_rescind_your_decision_to_delete_the_Kenneth_Wapnick_article_on_July_6.2C_2006 original discussion location] with consent of original poster. -Scott P. 02:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and speedy close-, proper close, and the indefinite blocking (which is not a ban) of an AFD nominator has no bearing on the validity of any deletion debates they started. --Coredesat 02:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::Cordesat, could you please address these points of his prolific authorship, his major involvement in what many third parties consider to be a spiritual classic, and the presence of thousands of other articles on the net about him? Why do you feel that these factors are unnotable? -Scott P. 02:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Comment First of all, it should also be noted that Ste4k was not blocked for disrupting AFDs; she was blocked for exhausting community patience, meatpuppetry, and incivility stemming from various topics, not just ACIM. Regarding your question, the closing admin of the AFD found that Ste4k's concerns were valid. If you can prove any of your claims, do so, but this is not AFD Round 2, which this nomination basically amounts to. --Coredesat 02:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Documentation as requested

:::#Wapnick's prolific authorship: See [http://amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=&author=wapnick%2C+kenneth&select-author=field-author-like&title=&select-title=field-title&subject=&select-subject=field-subject&field-publisher=&field-isbn=&node=&field-binding=&field-age=&field-language=&field-dateop=before&field-datemod=0&field-dateyear=2009&chooser-sort=rank%21%2Bsalesrank&mysubmitbutton1.x=0&mysubmitbutton1.y=0 Amazon.com's listing of his books].

:::#Google hits on Kenneth Wapnick: See [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22kenneth+wapnick%22&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images Google search results].

:::#Wapnicks major involvement with what many third parties consider to be a spiritual classic: Please read the Wikipedia article on ACIM.

::::Also, as I was the originator of that article, it only seems right that I should have at least been notified that an Afd discussion was going on regarding that article. None of the regular editors of that article were notified of the Afd, or given any chance to participate in that Afd. As none of us were consulted as is normally the Wiki practice, it seems to me that this becomes a proper forum to discuss the opposing views whose proponents were not informed of the Afd, and thereby who were not permitted to be heard in the original Afd.

::::Thanks,

::::-Scott P. 03:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::I don't see any evidence that anything was done properly in the AFD; the article was tagged appropriately. It is good faith to notify the creator of an article of an AFD, but it's not required. I'm still endorsing the original deletion; there's nothing to stop you from just creating a new article from reliable sources. By the way, other Wikipedia articles don't work as sources. --Coredesat 05:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for retracting your position on "speedy close". True, we could just start another article, however without a clear-cut outcome from a review here, would it not tempt anyone who might want to follow Ste4k's footsteps (perhaps one of Ste4k's meat-puppets who might still be around) to use the first Afd nomination discussion as convincing proof that a speedy article deletion was in order in a second Afd nomination? Which takes precedence here? Is it the actual noteworthiness of Dr. Kenneth Wapnick or is it Wikipedia protocols?

::::::Would you have an article on a notable subject squelched or jeopardized simply because you may feel that someone who is now banned, may have been a better manipulator of Wiki protocols than the rest of us for a time, (that is until he was finally stopped) or is it because you actually feel that the facts regarding Wapnick are genuinely unnoteworthy? After reviewing the documentation that you asked for, and that I feel supports the noteworthiness of Wapnick, how noteworthy (or unnoteworthy) do you actually feel the subject of Kenneth Wapnick is now?

::::::I apologize for not fully understanding the difference between Overturn and Relist. I have since changed my vote to Relist as I feel that this is more appropriate in light of the discussion of the previously undiscussed points of information regarding Wapnick.

::::::Thanks,

::::::-Scott P. 10:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion- Scott's arguments are rather persuasive.... if 130 books does not make one notable or worthy of a Wikipedia article, nor being one of the co-editors of the one of the best selling spiritual books of the 20th century... then something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia. Sethie 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Those "books" are published by "Foundation for a Course in Miracles", making them all self-published. Corvus cornix 16:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::I still do not see you providing any comprehensive rationale for censoring out an article on a primary editor of a book which has sold 1.5 million +, and which has been published by Penguin Press and others, or your rationale for censoring out an article on someone who already has over 30,000 sites with information on him (per Google). Why should Wikipedia be silent on this man when there is a clear and obvious thirst for information about him as evidenced by the thousands of Google links to his name? Is it Wikipedia's aim to be a withholder of easily accessed encyclopedic information that is frequently sought on the Internet, or a provider of it? -Scott P. 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Deletion discussions on the merits of the article's notability are not about "censorship", and I will kindly ask you to retract that bad faith accusation. And please address the self-publishing of the books. Corvus cornix 22:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

::::The dictionary defines censorship as the removal of information based on "moral, political, military, or other grounds". In my view, I can see no other reason for refusing to include an article in Wikipedia on one of the primary editors of what others have described as one of the "spiritual classics of the 21st century," other than for reasons other than merit. I felt that user Ste4k was banned because he acted in bad faith, attempting to essentially censor out all information about ACIM from Wiki, and I remain uncertain as to where the line between his clearly censorious activities ends and where common sense begins. Regarding the publishing of most of Wapnick's books (except for the most important one, ACIM) exclusively by the FIP, while I will admit that this might in some way detract from the impact of this, it still does nothing to detract from the other two points, each of which seem to me to be capable of standing on their own to justify the inclusion of an article on Wapnick. Could you please address the other two points? -Scott P. 23:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Your repeated bad faith attempts at claiming that anybody who disgarees with you is a censor does not convince me that I should continue this discussion. I have said what I have said. The books are self-published. Corvus cornix 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, allow new article. If new information is available that touches on the notability of the subject then we should review the decision to delete the article. I see we do have articles on his co-authors, Helen Schucman and William Thetford. Personally, I think the subject may be notable due to the huge success of the book, as Sethie points out, but I'm concerned there may not be sufficient independent sources to actually write a biography. If we can find the sources then we shold probably have the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. it is quite clear that there was no consensus. Undoubtedly some of the many overlapping articles in this walled garden should be deleted or merged, but it is reasonable that a principal author of the principal book would be one of those that should remain. DGG (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Over-turn deletion: Kenneth Wapnick is encyclopedia noteworthy as a consequence of his primary-teacher status for a multi-continent multi-language multi-decade spiritual movement, documented by number of books he's written/sold and number of webpages that include his name ("Internet buzz").Rosiestephenson 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have restored the article history behind a tag. If restored, it should be speedily deleted again per WP:CSD#G11 as being a promotional article that would require a complete rewrite to fix. G11 did not exist at the time of the AFD. --Coredesat 04:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure closed validly, none of the books and google link totals provided above account for notability. I myself get close to that many google hits. Ghits != notability. Self published books != notability.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion: I don't understand why there is even any need for a debate about this subject. Wapnick is on the executive board of both the Foundation of Inner Peace and Foundation of A Course In Miracles. He also owns, runs, and teaches at the largest A Course in Miracles learning center in the world. He was not only one of the editors of A Course In Miracles but was also directly related to Helen Shuchman and William Thetford (the scribes). He's a major player who played a major role in editing, publishing, translating and teaching the Course for over 30 years now. If Wikipedia has articles on A Course In Miracles, Helen Shuchman, and William Thetford, which it does, then there's no excuse not to have one on Kenneth Wapnick. George Oliver Darwin 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC) — George Oliver Darwin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: {{{2

:{{la|Voluntary sleep deprivation}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Voluntary sleep deprivation}} cache]|AfD)

This page was NOT a recreation of the ill-fated All-nighter article, was completely written from scratch and had excellent references, links and was neutrally written. Also had under construction tag, stating it was in progress and requesting NOT to be speedily deleted. Also the activity is well documented (google returns over 6 million hits & see references). If we delete things that people do not approve of, then this great project would be useless. These reasons aside, the csd summary was completely false anyway (was not at all a redirect). Please, undelete! --Bennyboyz3000 03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per my comments above --Bennyboyz3000 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as deleting admin. The speedy deleted content, originally also posted to "All-nighter" is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All-nighter&oldid=150754015 here], the content subject to AfD is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All-nighter&oldid=150648964 here]. They are substantially identical, and the original research about why people supposedly do "voluntary sleep deprivations" remains unsourced. Sandstein 05:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:ATTENTION! False information above: If you look, you would actually find that another person took all information in that revision from Voluntary sleep deprivation. This was NOT taken from all-nighter, look at the date stamp. This administrator seems to "dislike" the topic. --Bennyboyz3000 08:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, recreation of original research. >Radiant< 08:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment How is it original research if it is now cited from external sources? --Ginkgo100^talk 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• The part about "sleep deprivation" was sourced, because those sources were copy/pasted from our actual article on that. The rest of it was not encyclopedic. Fork articles aren't useful. >Radiant< 08:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: if the information was taken from another article without attribution, then it's a copyright violation, and should have been speedied. Corvus cornix 16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: It wasn't - and even if it was I was a major contributor. --Bennyboyz3000 04:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, does indeed appear to be a substantial recreation. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment While much of the text is very similar, the concern in the All-nighter AfD regarding OR were addressed in the Voluntary sleep deprivation article.
• Note redirected to Sleep deprivation#Voluntary. Will ^(talk) 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong overturn The reasons given at the AfD for All-nighter were that it was OR. Voluntary sleep deprivation, while containing some similar content, thoroughly cited that content from outside sources, eliminating this criticism. Therefore the arguments from the All-nighter AfD do not apply here. --Ginkgo100^talk 21:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, somebody simply copy/pasted the reference section from sleep deprivation. >Radiant< 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• The last version by BennyBoyz has inline citations. That's more important than a refs section. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Confused - Could someone temporarily restore the Voluntary sleep deprivation article or move it to user space? I can't find an archive anywhere. Thanks — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:Comment - Thankyou! When it is restored, you will notice a couple of non-referenced patches - but mostly well referenced and it did have an in-construction tag --Bennyboyz3000 05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)