Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Per WP:PROF and WP:FRINGE. The issue I have with this is that it appears to me that Mr Klenner has not published enough in notable publications. While he may be one of the founders of orthomolecular medicine, this isn't really a mainstream theory. Therefore, I believe that the article on Fred R. Klenner should be deleted. If it is necessary, it might well be worthwhile noting that he is one of the principal founders of the discipline in the history section of the Orthomolecular medicine. It's worthwhile noting that he doesn't even rate a mention in that article, which may just be an oversight. I should note that there was a lot of tangential talk - even to the point of talking about the U.S. Constitution at one point - and this has only made my job of closing harder as it tended to muddy the waters. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fred R. Klenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This AfD is being refocused on Fred R. Klenner only. Please see the below sub-section for the conversation to date. Djma12 (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for deleting these pages have been already discussed at length at the successful Robert Cathcart Afd -- and the Cathcart article was far more notable than these articles. Like that former article, these articles share many, if not all of the following WP:PROF and WP:BIO violations.
- Some of these articles use self-published books as their only citation. This hardly falls under the criterion of "independent sources."
- A number of these citations are merely posted on someone's homepage. [5] This is hardly a reliable source.
- To bolster their citation, some articles cite the "Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine" (self described within Orthomolecular medicine as "We had to create our own journals because it was impossible to obtain entry into the official journals of psychiatry and medicine") or the non-peer reviewed "Medical Hypotheses." This also fails the criterion of "independent source", along with the criteria of "significant and well-known academic work." (The definition is provided by WP:PROF, it is the basis for a textbook, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.
- Simply being published (especially in random, unreviewed journals) does NOT fit WP:PROF criteria. Otherwise, every published author would somehow be notable. What is required is, and I quote, ""an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources."
- Notice that this is not a merely listing of all orthomolecular authors. Some orthomolecular indivdiuals such as Linus Pauling and Albert Szent-Györgyi are indeed notable. They are notable because they have been awarded internationally recognized commendation, or have published in journals such as Nature and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. These citations fit WP:PROF criteria -- self-published journals and Melbourne-based Greek newspapers do not.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the above rationale:
- Carl Pfeiffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (recommend merge with Orthomolecular psychiatry)
- Thomas E. Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Archie Kalokerinos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- David Horrobin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (recommend merge with Medical Hypotheses)
- Julian Whitaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Abram Hoffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Irwin Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Djma12 (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What does this mean? Are you still trying to get the above 7 doctors' entries deleted? If so, where are the pages that discuss the suggested deletions? If you aren't trying to get them deleted, why are there still deletion notices on the pages?--Alterrabe 17:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The tags are still on b/c Wiki rules do not allow you to remove deletion tags, even if they were your own nomination. I recommend Keep for the above seven pending renomination at another date, and have this AfD refocused on Fred R Klenner. Djma12 (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am pleased to hear this. However, I would like to know who, in that case DOES have the power to remove such tags? Could somebody please inform me of this? I noticed that on the David Horrobin site, whose listing was always wholly inappropriate, the 'notability' tag was indeed removed, but the 'deletion' tag persists, having been placed there by Djima after very significant editing and referencing. What gives? Further, I draw attention to the fact that each of the persons who were nominated had some connection with nutritional medicine. I am highly suspicious that the nominations were not at all agenda based in some way. They do not appear to have been random, or merely based upon some criterion of 'notability' or whatever. Brigantian 19:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep David Horrobin Both for reasons stated below, and for those which a cursory look across the content, external links and references on his site will make clear as the light of day. Brigantian 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All Until Djima comes up with both a plausible explanation for the surprising similarities of the opinions and comittments of this particular grouping, to demonstrate that this is not merely a mass attack on an interest group in science, since none of these appear to be linked directly within Wikipedia; and until someone wholly independent nominates them individually for reasons more plausible than those which have been put forward.Brigantian 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete all, as they fail WP:PROF. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep and relist individually. After some prodding by a fellow editor, I think that a blanket delete may not be in order here after all. Klenner probably fails WP:PROF, but maybe some of the others don't. At least a full discussion on each is merited. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reconsideration. From WP:BIO: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Klenner originated the high dose IV vitamin C regimes for cancer, many toxins, and viruses, but his results remained completely untested and ignored in mainstream medicine almost 60 yrs, until recently. Klenner also cites an oxidative mechanism at high IV ascorbate doses over 50 yrs ago for viruses, some toxins, and cancer. Now ca 2000+, so does the NIH, starting to think about relevant clinical cancer trials. Klenner is notable for originating high dose IV ascorbate concepts 50-60 yrs ago, relevant to articles in Can Med Assoc Journal & Proc Natl Acad Sciences now —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNautilus (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination for Horrobin is based upon the fact that the article is basically just a bio -- it names little that he is actually notable for. Other than founding "Medical Hypotheses" (and having the journal he founded name a prize after him), and being runner up in a book prize, what is he notable for? I suggest that his article be merged with Medical Hypotheses. Djma12 (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if you have reservations about why the listings are too sweeping, please do share why specific individuals are notable. I am not adverse to taking individuals off the list if citations fitting WP:PROF can be found.Djma12 (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even a perfunctory medline search reveals that CC Pfeiffer's research was published in, among other journals, Science, JAMA, Biol Psychiatry, Ann NY Acad Sci and similarly august journals. I am adamantly against the (unwarranted) deletion of Pfeiffer's entry (and most of the others as well)--Alterrabe 10:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
-
- Why are these concerns overcome please? A simple pubmed search for "Carl Pfeiffer" brings up none of the citations you claim, and the specific article citations are not included in the bio. Furthermore, simply being published does not grant you WP:PROF criteria. (Otherwise, every single published author would be notable.) What is required is, and I quote, "an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources."Djma12 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For future reference pubmed and journals work with surnames and initials!! "Pfeiffer CC" gets you more than 100 articles. Unfortunately, you misquote WP:PROF. There are 6 criteria, any one of which suffices to establish notability. Being Chair at Emory does make you a "significant expert." And even if none of the criteria are met, a person may still be "notable." Can we agree on this? FWIW during the Cold War the US government counted Drs. Pfeiffer and Hoffer among its experts on the use of LSD. This alone almost certainly makes them notable.--Alterrabe 14:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, thank you for pointing that out. I'll try to address you statements individually.
- Looking at the citations list, most of them are to the unreviewed "Medical Hypotheses" and other small journals. There are two JAMA listings but both of them appear to be editorials or reviews rather than actual original content.
- Simply being a Chair at Emory does not make you notable. Otherwise we'd have an article for every chairperson from every department from every university. What is required is still third party verification of a significant contributions made to the field. The article in the current form definitely does not provide that.
- Yes, WP:PROF criteria are not exclusive, but you still need to provide third party documentation of notability somehow. Do you have a citation that he was a "LSD expert." If so, does the citation state what contributions he made to the field? Djma12 (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the 103 articles, 8 are in Biol Psych, 5 or so in the Ann NY Acad Sci, some more in experentia, Arch Gen Psych and more. These are all blue chip publications. I cannot agree with you that these are "other small journals."
- Yes, being the the Chair at a top tier university won't suffice. My friend, read Pfeiffer's original works, talk to his collaborators and friends, as I have, and to grateful patients, and any doubt that he was noteworthy, and perhaps even ahead of his time, will evaporate. The Pfeiffer Treatment Center, to which Pfeiffer lent his expertise, is at if not the cutting edge of research into the neurobiology of criminal behavior.
- If your read Colin Moss' book on Operation Bluebird, MKULTRA etc Hoffer and Pfeiffer's names are mentioned in connection with their expertise on LSD. Hoffer developed his "adenochrome theory" of schizophrenia from his knowledge of what LSD does.--Alterrabe 18:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So of his 103 publications, only 13 or so of his publications are in recognizable journals? (And middle-tiers one at that. Biol Psych has an Impact factor of 6, compared with say JAMA which has a I.F. of 22.) All this only proves is that he is an academic with a few published papers, it doesn't go towards why he is notable.
- I would love to "talk to his collaboratos and friends" as you have, but that constitutes original research under WP:NOR. While I trust your intent, wiki seeks verifiability, not "truth". What I would love are citations on why his work is notable and important.
- Again, I would love citations, both here and within the article, about Pfeiffer's role with MKULTRA and how that pertains to notability.
- Djma12 (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your logic (or total lack thereof) baffles me!! Are you serious?
- You get the impact factors totally wrong, don't have the magnanimity or acumen necessary to overlook an obvious typo, don't understand that you can talk with people, and do original research as long as you don't incorporate it into the article, and that doing so can make for a vastly better article. I have referenced the to date most authoritative book on the US government's interest in LSD. I have no doubt that one if not several attorneys carefully scrutinized every letter in that book, as I don't have it with me, I am not about to do more than mention the book. Their involvement automatically makes Pfeiffer and Hoffer germane not only to the History of Science, but also to the Ethics of Science and to Cold War History.--Alterrabe 03:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second I second that proposal, excellent idea. --Crusio 22:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all and relist, using judgment about which ones to relist. ISI highly cited is a clear statement of notability as judged by hundreds of other researchers. A journal with an impact factor of 6 is--in any subject--a first rate journal, not a middle tier journal. Being a chair at a research university like Emory is a reasonable indication that people think someone notable. This does look alike POV motivated attempt to delete articles on everyone with a particular point of view on vitamin C. DGG (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest to defer *any* relisting for 6 months, and allow time for articles to mature, as well as for concerned editors to gain more familiarity. "Educating" unfamiliar editors to various science issues, even dealing in the best faith and significant technical background, is extremely time consuming and sometimes enervating. For instance DGG, another "conventional" editor's take on Glyconutrient still loudly repeats the WP:V (mis)statement dietary supplements that contain a blend of eight simple sugars (monosaccharides) which is also simply WP:V wrong (the starch filler contained therein will yield some saccharides *after* ingestion, most of the rest are fermentable polymers among other properties, and the closest major monosaccharide in the original formula appears to be the aminosugar, glucosamine, not exactly one of the "8 essentials"). This is the problem with many "conventional" medical edits & claims here at WP, they simply can't tell Shinola from the other, er, stuff. (In this latter example, the most notable commercial promoter also technically confuses the situation, aggravated by the current editing in the current article at WP. And, yes, you've seen me before.) Thank you for your observations and comments here.--TheNautilus 06:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds fair - I'll relist the individuals on separate AfDs. To be honest, I grouped them b/c I really don't have the time to sludge through eight separate AfDs, but perhaps that's better in the long run (though more time consuming.) Djma12 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that the individual editors were not contacted, although not an absolute requirement, it is a common courtesy to individual editors on individual articles. I really think this is extraordinarily premature and, frankly, wasting a lot of peoples' time and patience. The Cathcart article assassination was out of the blue with a number of statements that appear to be false but take time for uninvolved editors to develop rather than five days notice (e.g. the 60s-70s contemporary value and notability of Cathcart's artificial joint that apparently made a lot of money at a time individuals' high tech patent millions were often harder to get than hi tech billions today). Also another problem with deletion is that it becomes hard to follow up on threads of questions or patterns of action. Decency would be to withdraw the nomination and try to collaborate first, several other oncologists here have done so in my experience, quite well, without POV becoming COI or vice versa.--TheNautilus 06:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'll notice - The articles were tagged for some time as needing improvement. I can't help it if the interested parties can't be bothered to update their own articles. And if you'll read the "Cathcart assassination" AfD, its pretty clear what the consensus was. I also can't help it if the preponderous of wiki editors disagreed with your assessment. Djma12 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all I think that the nominating editor needs to attempt to collaborate over some time first. Some of the individuals biographed are highly referenced in conventional medical literature that takes a while to dig out (my state doesn't even go that far back, much less Medline...or at least, even some of the editors here yet born). There has been precious little prior discussion here at WP on the articles by the nominating editor (dismissive), much less meaningful attempts to gain broader or deeper information on these subjects, to ask useful questions of other WP editors, and make meaningful trial edits back and forth that can develop better content. One of the presumptions the the nominator makes seems to be that common, highly commercialized, ad versions of science and the history of science dictates notability, it doesn't. Notability for individual altmed is different, whether dealing with prejudicially handled legitimate hypotheses, unfounded phantasms, or master showmen (see Dudley J. LeBlanc), than notability in the recognized mainstream of medicine. In a number of cases, individual distortions by the nominator also seem to be lumped upon the whole group, as well as seriously erring. (e.g. Djma12: ...A number of these citations are merely posted on someone's homepage. [1] The exact link 1 Djma12 used, the website homepage, is not the same page for the external link that I found[6] (or [7]) at Irwin Stone, which is a webpage of convenience links to very old vitamin C papers in mainstream journals back to 1935 that include Irwin Stone's papers as well as related papers, hard to get where I live.) Orthomed contributors, who are a scientific group in a medical minority, have frequently been dismissed here at WP as pseudoscientists when obscured by so-called "mainstream" statements that turn out to be highly misinformed by conventional science reckonings (e.g. violating principles of hypothesis testing/replication and not using complete information for whatever reason), mere innuendo, or outright scientific misconduct by their "mainstream" accusers.--TheNautilus 06:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Orthomed contributors (...) by their "mainstream" accusers -> this problem you have with the way Wikipedia works will not go away until reliable sources have documented this and mainstream science has stopped dismissing orthomed contributions as pseudoscience. Placing "mainstream" in quotes here shows a clear (minority) POV: it states that really mainstream science does not dismiss orthomed, and suggests it supports it. Avb 11:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This statement continues to confuse pharmaceutical commericialism, numerously cited for its scandals, aka "mainstreet clinical medicine", different from currently accepted mainstream medical research, and confused with mainstream *science*, a process, despite numerous cited transgressions in the literature that should give chemical sales reps lurid fantasies. Orthomed is science based, but a minority relative to highly subsidized and advertised xenobiotic pharmaceuticals in medicine.--TheNautilus 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why complain in an AfD about Wikipedia content that has been written according to its rules? If you can show that the status quo as described by you is also described in reliable, preferably secondary sources, nothing should stand in the way of changing the encyclopedia accordingly. Conversely, if/where the rules have been violated, feel free to use the relevant dispute resolution processes. I also refer you to these comments. Avb 16:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the nominating editor needs to attempt to collaborate over some time first --> I think this comment on the nominating editor is not warranted. It does not inform the debate and may, therefore, be interpreted as a slur, or an attempt to discredit the nominator's arguments. It certainly is not an argument to keep the articles. It might be acceptable at the editor's talk page, in the form of advice. Just my opinion, of course. Avb 11:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is that the AfD is far too early given the resources and number of editors concerned with orthomed being diverted by processes counterproductive to content time without any attempt to learn or edit more. The nominator has been pretty dismissive of things he shows a strong POV and little real background on, with the very real threat of additional disruptive deletions and restructuring rather than productive editing.--TheNautilus 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your content/process/etc-related comments are most welcome, just like your personal POVs. Your comments on the nominator are not. Please do not proffer other editors' (perceived) POV as a reason to keep articles. Note that the nominator's POVs (whatever they may be) are just as valid as your POVs. I refer you to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DELETE. Avb 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of Pfeiffer's work as a distinguished part of the mainstream from the 1930s to the 1950s/60s may not be likely to show up on the proposed web / pubmed searches.--TheNautilus 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True. But note that this is not a special problem of older material; even for recent work, while inclusion of a subject in the encyclopedia can be based on material found through these resources, exclusion cannot be based on lack of material found here. Regardless, Google Scholar does yield 107 hits for CC Pfeiffer in the period 1930-1969. Avb 16:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am unfamiliar with the other nominees, and do not have time to research. However it is absolutely clear that David Horrobin should be kept. He publlished more Peer-Reviewed papers in journals of unimpeachable quality (see his extraordinary bibliography currently linked from the site, as well as listed in bibliography on the ISI site) than do a dozen more average scientists in a lifetime. The reference to Medical Hypotheses entirely misses this, and further misses the point of the journal itself. It appears only to show an ignorance of the intended function of the Journal Medical Hypotheses in particular, of the very extensive work of Dr. Horrobin in general, and also of his own publication history related to the subject of peer review itself. (Try googling "David Horrobin" and "peer review" and peruse some of the 299 hits that specific search alone turns up!). Further, the reference at the outset of this discussion to Medical Hypotheses makes it seem as though this journal is somehow disreputable. Aside from missing the point of the journal entirely, it should be noted that Dr. Horrobin attracted the following as the journal's original editorial board in the mid 1970s: the double Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, the Nobel Laureate in medicine Sir Macfarlane Burnet, the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, the Nobel Laureate in physiology Sir John Eccles, and the acclaimed physiologist A.C. Guyton. These understood the purpose of the journal, and it would be good for the nominator for deletion to consider its function as well. As for both the scientific and general notability of Dr. Horrobin, just take a look a the ISI site, or google him. In a main Google search, Fred Klenner produces a total of 211 hits, whereas David Horrobin produces 16,700- every one of which refers to him. Horrobin is an unusual name, and he was unusually notable. A Google Scholar search produces 478 hits, and pubmed search of "Horrobin D" produces 510. Every one appears to be by the David Horrobin in question. Quite apart from being a notable scientist, he was notable enough to have been accorded obituaries in almost all the major broadsheet British newspapers, as well as (notably!) in both the BMJ, and in the Lancet. The nomination is entirely unjustified, and its motivations are therefore rather questionable. Brigantian 14:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC) — Brigantian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).
- Keep all. My personal opinion is that the notability of one, perhaps two, of the doctors, where fair minds can disagree ought to be debated, if only to once and for all establish their notability or lack thereof. However when the contributor initiating the discussion has:
- deleted a perfectly good link to a scientist's publications at the NIH's medline, falsely claiming that it was bad,
- misrepresented wikipedia's guidelines (original research may not be entered into articles, but can be extremely helpful in finding acceptable sources for wikipedia and forming one's opinions)
- misrepresented the importance of various preeminent scientific publications
- made other suggestions whose logic other contributors cannot fathom,
I feel the wisest and most productive course of action is to immediately adjourn these deletion proceedings sine die until we can be sure that we will discuss them based on factual evidence and according to wikipedia guidelines. Scientists need not have had their contemporaries accept their theories to be sufficiently notable for a wikipedia entry; otherwise Galileo Galilei's entry would have to be removed, nor do they have to have been correct at all; otherwise Trofim Lysenko and Ptolemy's entries would have to be deleted.--Alterrabe 15:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Generally agree with Alterrabe's comments, especially the latter ones. Also, WRT David Horrobin once more, on the note of controversy, "Notability" does not, as Alterrabe suggests, necessarily mean "positive" notability. Dr. Horrobin certainly attracted controversy, but then so did Darwin, and Copernicus. However his NOTABILITY is unquestionable. The very negative obit which he received in the BMJ (the only one which was so, out of many, only some of which can now be linked to the site) elicited the largest number of responses (in his defence) for any such article in the history of the British Medical Journal. Now "Djima12", how do you account for that, if he was not NOTABLE!? Good grief. Brigantian — Brigantian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).Djma12 (talk)
- For the record - I based these nominations upon the articles themselves, which were sparse and poorly sourced when I found them. I even tagged them for some time to allow for expansion and improvement, to no avail. Now if the people who are complaining about the nominations have since found all sorts of Google hits, etc... after the nomination, then please put the citations within the articles. I am more than happy to reboot the nominations on an individual basis and allow time to add sources. Instead of all these accusations of "out of the blue assassination", however, why not look at the actual history of the articles and the requests for collaboration? Sheesh Djma12 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, that's odd, since (as you must know) I found it very notable in itself that you (Djima12) both attached the notability tag, and then attached the tag for deletion, in this case after the article had been extensively referenced (esp. by proxy with the ISI site and the David Horrobin Bibliography site) and enlarged, in response to the initial notability tag! This is of course clear from the revision history of the page, if anyone else wishes to check it. Brigantian— Brigantian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).Djma12 (talk)
- Comment Further, the addition of the "few or no other edits" by Djima12 to my comments on this page is entirely irrelevant. I have only just begun to do so, and was moved to to so particularly by the clear inappropriateness of the deletion nomination of David Horrobin. I do not have time to be spending hours, or generally even minutes a day editing Wikipedia. If you wish to challenge the accuracy of what I say, then by all means do so, but flagging the number of editorial contributions smacks of ad hominem. I do wonder why it was thought necessary to add this sub tag. Are you attempting to discredit me in some way because my comments are not to your liking? Brigantian —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just find it odd that someone with no prior interest or edits in wiki can suddenly find a random AfD with a clear understanding of wiki tagging and editting. Djma12 (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In turn, I find it odd that you have added this note to my comment, having excorciated a commentator above for inattentive reading, since I make it clear that my comments here are the very opposite of random. They are wholly specific. Brigantian
- I didn't to say it but you seem to want it force it out of me. I suspect you of being a Sockpuppet. No one with no prior experience in wiki knows both the AfD process and the editing process this thoroughly.Djma12 (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is laughable. Apart from its clear ad hominem irrelevance, do you really think it so difficult? I learnt to do this in about half an hour. I simply followed the links from the notability and deletion flags themselves. On your own user webpage you claim to be a peer-reviewed published scientist and electrical engineer or some such. How on earth did you get to that level without the wherewithal to learn to edit something like this in a few minutes? I am operating from a British University with a stable web address. I will log out and post a comment to demonstrate my web address immediately after this. And in the future, I would suggest that you don't issue such ridiculous accusations, lest you reveal the little man behind the curtain! Brigantian
- Further, my first comment on this particular page was unsigned, and I recieved a message from TheNautilus earlier today, which is why I created the Brigantian account. That message, just for further proof, can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:129.215.49.110&redirect=no In any case, if he's still watching, the Nautilus can confirm themselves. In case you think I am them, you could perhaps request their IP address in like manner. But this is really getting ridiculous and is in any case unnecessary, since it is clear that the message Nautilus sent was indeed to my specific web address, and was sent 2 hours PRIOR to your silly accusation. The bottom line appears to be that while you are obviously very happy to call into question the notability of scientists who have published hundereds upon hundreds of papers, you don't like criticism yourself. Brigantian —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There, see, I've just visited my own user page for the first time, and learned something new: how to sign automatically. Any more school playground attacks, or are you prepared to actually look at the facts concerning David Horrobin, which is the purpose of your ill-considered nomination after all, no? Brigantian 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Finally, as I do need to do some other work, your call for the references to be comprehensively included in the site is wholly overdemanding especially in the case of David Horrobin. Or do you think it reasonable that I or anyone else should add some 800 or more links individually, rather than one or two to perfectly compiled and accessible bibliographies on such unimpeachable sites as ISI? Brigantian —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refocus on Fred R Klenner
[edit]This AfD is being refocused to concentrate only on Fred R. Klenner. I recommend that the other individuals be listed as Keep for now, with relisting for deletion at another date.
- Thanks for the update, as I tend not to use Google Scholar for medical searches. So we have a total of 5 original articles published in South Med Jour, J Appl Nutr, or Southern Med Surg. Does anyone else have other sources? Djma12 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added an article on his presentation to a meeting of the AMA. Others have written of an article he published under the auspices of the AMA, which I can't corroborate. He wrote far more than 5 pages. One chapter in Levy references 19 articles alone. I see no need to include all them in the article.--Alterrabe 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article needs more sources if it is to be kept. Articles have to show the notability of the subject; this one doesn't. I'm reserving my opinion because I hope that editors will supply sources. I'm afraid arguments without third-party sources just don't cut it. Avb 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In keeping with the refocussing on this one individual alone, I strongly suggest that you remove reference to Medical Hypotheses on this page, as being both irrelevant, and indeed ill-researched and inappropriate for reasons stated earlier in the discussion. Brigantian 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not exactly sure what you getting at. While Medical Hypotheses may be a useful journal for proposing additional avenues of research, it is non-peer reviewed and thus does not fit WP:CITE criteria. In reference to the Fred Klenner article specifically, though, I don't believes it cites this journal and thus the critique would not apply. Djma12 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CITE gives no stipulation that sources must be peer reviewed. In fact Medical Hypotheses does fit Wikipedia's WP:V criteria as a published source. Lumos3 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I continue to comment on Med Hypotheses, as it remains a part of your denigrating list above. I find it ironic that you have suggested a merge of David Horrobin with Medical Hypotheses, as well as deletion of the former, if you clearly have no knowledge of either, as you have appeared to claim above, saying that your nominations were simply based on the entries alone. But for the record, Medical Hypotheses was founded precisely to solve the issue of the stifling effects of Peer Review upon innovation in Medicine. The principle is simple: new ideas are always somewhat to radically outwith the scope of the conventional and the established. Peer Review fairly effectively allows the assessment of ideas in accordance with ESTABLISHED principles and wisdom, but is singularly ill-equipped to deal with truly new, radical or revolutionary ideas. A forum for such ideas is warranted, the principle being that if even one in 100 were true, then the power of the forum to promote revolutionary change would be immense. David Horrobin established the journal precisely to be a non-peer-reviewed journal so that such ideas could be aired. It is not that it is not edited. It is for this reason its original editorial board was so impressive. Its present editorial board is both intellectually powerful and scientifically credible, counting among its number, for example, Antonio Damasio and the Nobel Laureate Arvid Carlsson. Do you still feel comfortable with your using its name in a deprecating manner at the outset of this discusion? If so, I would really like to know why. For that matter, Djima12, I have yet to see very good reasons for any of your particular judgements in this sorry episode.Brigantian 19:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are several reasons for my decision:
- (A few years back) I found medline to be of little to no use when investigating research from before the late 60s. Coverage was, to be polite, spotty. Medline cannot be the ultimate arbiter of pertinence for medical research conducted decades before medline was conceived. Moreover I have added one citation, and hope to add more. It's a fair assumption that the various authors on the uses of vitamin C, Pauling, Levy, Cathcart and others, all have sung Klenner's praises. It would be an act of pedantry to insist that all these authors, whose beliefs largely overlap, be quoted individually. I think it would be fair to set guidelines for how extensive the article must be to really be an addition to wikipedia.
- Klenner's research which was an important new concept, theory or idea which was profiled in an article in the JAMA, which is a WP:RS. Moreover Linus Pauling, a two-timed Nobel Laureate, intrepidly followed in his footsteps. Within the world of alternative medicine, Klenner has become something of a folk hero due to his research with sodium ascorbate.
- Last, but far from least, there is a haunting potential historical parallel which I believe provides a clear answer; that of Joseph_Goldberger a doctor in the American South who proved in 1916 that the 100,000 cases of pellagra in the American South were caused by a dietary deficiency and not by an infectious disease as was then thought. Goldberger, despite being employed by the PHS, was unable to convince the medical establishment of his findings, and thus the pellagra plague continued until 1937, when the missing nutrient was isolated. Roughly 100,000 people spent 20 years essentially living as imbeciles because Goldberger was unable to get his findings into the canonical medical texts of his day. Had Klenner been a Nascar driver, I wouldn't worry at all about his not being included in wikipedia. In the past - such as with Pellagra - huge mistakes have been made, and I think it is an ethical imperative that those who bother to read - and even donate to - wikipedia should be able to decide for themselves if Klenner was closer to being one of the more notable cranks the South has produced or another Joseph Goldberger, whose findings though never disproven, have yet to be adopted into the medical canon. Let the people decide!!!--Alterrabe 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I appreciate the sentiment, I don't believe this argument is relevant. Per WP:NOT, wiki is not a forum to broadcast your personal ideas -- it is an encyclopedia for detailing published literature. Djma12 (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to blithely misunderstand the points I was making.
- 1) Klenner was published so these are not my personal ideas! Insinuations to the contrary are deceptive. Orthomolecular medicine hasn't taken off stateside, perhaps because other medical philosophies employ enforcement mechanisms redolent of the Spanish Inquisition. Farther afield however, orthomolecular medicine is not nearly as close to a "fringe" discipline; my pharmacist, gp, and dentist are all aware of it, and practice it to a greater or lesser degree.
- 2) There is another aspect: a physician is well within his rights to inform a patient that he or she discharges the services associated with his or her art according to the generally accepted practices of his or her peers, and doesn't wish to experiment with unconventional approaches. Yet even American constitutional law acknowledges that there are limits to the freedom of speech that the First Amendment affords; falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded and darkened movie theater is not protected by law; in fact, if frightened movie-goers trample each other to death, the malefactor can be, and generally is, held accountable in a court of law. Wikipedia requires that its users assume good faith, even in extremis; other spheres have different burdens of proof. For this reason, I believe that Wikipedia has at least a moral obligation to protect its readers from the suppression of innovative theories and therapies that are practiced outside of the United States and from edits that smack of censorship and the rigid enforcement of a particular ideology / point of view.--Alterrabe 11:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no doubt of Klenner’s notability within the field or orthomolecular medicine. To suggest that he needs to be recognised by other medical fields as well is to take a particular side in the ongoing argument between orthomolecular and "mainstream" medical science. Notability is proven within orthomolecular medicine and this is enough. In no other area do we insist that notability is proven to exist outside the field of a subject’s specialism. This deletion request, linked as it was to a range of workers in this field is clearly an attempt to further a particular anti-orthomolecular point of view on Wikipedia. Lumos3 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Lumos on this. I am extremely suspicious of the motives of Djima12, who at the same time as attacking a very particular grouping such as this, claims above in discussion with me not to know much about any in particular, beyond what was comprised in the original article. How, I wonder, would one go about compiling a list of orthomolecular scientists SPECIFICALLY, if not through personal knowledge thereof? And why should one do this? Interesting that Djima12 appears to accuse me of a surprising specificity on this (I have indeed not commented on any other Wikipedia page, and was indeed moved to do so by the outrageous Notability/Deletion tags specifically on David Horrobin), as it appears almost inconceivably unlikely that he would just "happen upon" such a group without prior and intimate knowledge...Brigantian 20:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There appears to be no doubt that he is perceived as a pioneer within the vitamin C field. Though his works were never widely recognised they were published in peer-reviewed publications. Agree with Alterrabe that older medical research is poorly represented on Medline. Espresso Addict 20:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
- The JAMA reference meets reliability standards; the recent J Othomolecular Med articles also seem to establish notability within that community and are clearly independent of the subject himself. His own peer-reviewed publications are also appropriate primary sources. Espresso Addict 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- Google Books finds reference to what it was about in the Thomas E. Levy book. More a pointer than a ref though: Xlibris is self-published, so not a peer-reviewed publication. Gordonofcartoon 03:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These issues were all addressed at the Robert Cathcart Afd. Simply "being notable within the orthomed community" is NOT enough per WP:FRINGE. And I quote
- In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual.
- Furthermore, just b/c an individual is a folk hero of the orthomed community does not make his article exempt from the criteria of WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Simply stating that "his many publications just can't be found on medline anymore" doesn't cut it. The burden of proof falls upon the author to provide citations demonstrating notability, not vice versa. Djma12 (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We just went over this. He devised a pioneering therapy for the treatment of poliomyelitis referenced in the article that was referenced in the JAMA, as well as the other journals he published in. Another point that you overlook is that the New England Journal of Medicine began, as its name implies, as a Journal of Medicine for one part of the country; the Southern Journal of Medicine would obviously have been its Southern counterpart. It would be unwise to assume that the relative standing of these journals has not changed over the last 50-60 years. I cannot follow the logic of those who claim that a man who published multiple articles on a revolutionary new therapy in a counterpart of the NEJM is not noteworthy.--Alterrabe 07:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, I think you misuderstand NEJM and South Med Journ. NEJM is named as such b/c is published through Brigham and Women's hospital (i.e. Harvard), not b/c it only applies to the Northeast. The South Jour of Med is NOT the equivalent of the NEJM in the South. Nor does it have even a fraction of the Impact factor of NEJM. Secondly, as was established in the Robert Cathcart Afd, you cannot establish notability off of someone else's coattails. He was referenced in passing in one JAMA article. Any JAMA article has literally 50-60 citations. Merely being cited in passing in someone else's paper does not establish notability. Djma12 (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that it is misleading if not deceitful to include words in quotation marks in a reply when these words were not used in the text being replied to; demagogues know this practice as a strawman. I never once suggested that the Southern J Med and the NEJM were "equivalents," but rather that they had been "counterparts."--Alterrabe 18:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The NEJM is "is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society" as can be read on its website. (http://content.nejm.org/) The South J Med was established by the Southern Medical Association, which itself was established to educate physicians in the states of the Confederacy, Maryland, Texas and the District of Columbia. The two journals obviously enjoy different levels of influence, but were manifestly established to fulfill the same needs in different parts of the United States. It would be interesting, and perhaps pertinent to the discussion, though tedious, to learn more about the impact factor of the two journals in the past decades. Could it be that, in those distant and perhaps benighted days before the abolition of Jim Crow and introduction of the fax machine and email, doctors within the confines of the Confederacy were expected to correspond with the organ of the Southern Medical Association? If so, would it make sense to expect Klenner to act according to procedures that didn't exist at the time? I agree that if Klenner's only accomplishment had been to get mentioned in passing in the JAMA, he definitely wouldn't be noteworthy. Klenner did more than just that.--Alterrabe 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've hit on the crux of the issue. To understand the impact factor of these two journals is not just "pertinent", but crucial, "tedious" as it may be. Southern Medical Journal currently has an impact factor of 0.780, compared with the New England Journal of Medicine who has an IF of 51. South Med Jour has never been an organ of original research, and even self describes itself as "devoted solely to continuing medical education." The fact that Klenner published to a small, post-confederacy medical society on an outdated topic in continuing medical education does not establish notability. Your commentary on the days "before fax machines and email" is interesting, but original research, as if correspondence did not exist even in the early days of NEJM and JAMA.
- I'm sure that you misconstrue my thoughts. I deliberately couched my suspicions in a question, with a question mark at the end, to emphasize that I was not asserting that this putative scenario was factual. Airing hypothetical possibilities cannot constitute original research for obvious reasons. Would you have a source for your statement has S Med Jour never been an organ of original research? Bear in mind that in Klenner's day, double-blind placebo-controlled studies were rarely if ever done; rather doctors shared their experiences with one another. How can you be sure that the use Vitamin C as antiviral is "outdated;" perhaps its day hasn't come.--Alterrabe 16:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the hypothetical question posed, but I think you misunderstand the burden of proof here. If you are going to use a journal with an impact factor 0.78 and no medical reputation for research, the burden of proof lies with you on why this establishes notability for Klenner. Djma12 (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, Crusio makes an important point. The fact that Klenner has not been widely cited since the 1950s establishes that he made no lasting contributions to medical notability. If his work was truly the foundation for further work by Pauling, etc..., surely he would have been cited within the literature. Djma12 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not necessarily the case. Scientific research is full of examples of pioneering research that wasn't properly cited by later work in the same field. Pauling acknowledged that Klenner's papers were important in the foreword to the summary of Klenner's publications [8]. Espresso Addict 16:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
- This is Djma's repeated mis-citation of WP:SELFPUB, as above & misrepresented again as "www.seanet.com/~alexs". The "www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate" related links to are 're-published papers in mainstream journals for convenience, with properly cited original references. My reply,(e.g. Djma12: "...A number of these citations are merely posted on someone's homepage..[1]" The exact link 1 Djma12 used, the website homepage, is not the same page for the external link that I found[9] (or [10]) at Irwin Stone, which is a webpage of convenience links to very old vitamin C papers in mainstream journals back to 1935 that include Irwin Stone's papers as well as related papers, hard to get where I live.)--TheNautilus 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a certain logic to this proposition. And yet there are also strong arguments that speak against it. One is that Klenner's work has faced a Catch-22: in order to be accepted it had to be published, and at the same time in order to be published it had to be accepted. Marcia Angell, a former editor at the NEJM, has bewailed the decision making processes at some medical journals. Klenner, and similarly minded individuals, found it easier to publish in journals beyond the index of medline. The problem with the logic of this proposition is that the logic, i.e. that a therapy must be accepted by mainstream American medicine to be valid or notable, leads to views that defy common sense, such as that acupuncture, an ancient Chinese practice, was not notable in the 1970s because it wasn't openly practiced in America. My personal opinion is that the wisest course of action is to include all the applicable caveats, but let the article stand.--Alterrabe 17:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO specifically allows ANY notability, even negative notability to be used. Even if the majority of the medical community believes your idea to be junk, if they have published an attack on you in a reputable journal, you are notable. However, if your idea is so unknown that no one even takes notice (hence publishes nothing for or against it), you are NOT notable. Djma12 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re ... if your idea is so unknown... You are perhaps suggesting that CMAJ, PNAS, NIH, Ann Int Med & J Am Col Nutr, are now unknown or non-notable bodies, after the HD Riordan and Mark Levine et al papers concerning potential cancer treatments with Klenner's IV vitamin C blood levels? Also Levine et al, again in PNAS, (2007): ...These data provide a foundation for pursuing pharmacologic ascorbate as a prooxidant therapeutic agent in cancer and infections.[11]. Please especially note the ...and infections part.--TheNautilus 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the point is that until it became clear that that pioneering research was indeed pioneering, it was not notable. Klenner has not been cited, so he has not been notable. If in the coming years it will turn out that his work was right and seminal and his day comes, he will become notable. Without a good crystal ball, there's no way of telling who will or will not become notable. That's why it is important that he is not notable now. --Crusio 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we have to be cautious about the word "pioneering". It carries a strong connotation of vindication: if that vindication is not generally agreed-on, it's not a neutral word to use. Gordonofcartoon 17:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the brunt of your comment, except for the notion that a "crystal ball" is needed. There were a number of other scientists who were interested in Vitamin C as an anti-viral; among them Jungeblut (Jungeblut C (1937 Vitamin C therapy and prophylaxis in experimental poliomyelitis. J Exp Med 65:127:146) Kligler and Bernkopf, (Kligler I. and Bernkopf H. (1937) Inactivation of vaccinia virus by ascorbic acid and glutathione. Nature 139:965-966), Holden and Resnick (Holden M and Resnick R. (1936) The in vitro action of synthetic crystalline vitamin C (ascorbic acid) on herpes virus. J Immunology 31:455-462), Baur and Staub (Baur H. and Staub H. (1952) Poliomyelitis therapy with ascorbic acid infusions Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift 84:595-597), Salo and Cliver (Salo R and Cliver D, (1978) Inactivation of enteroviruses by ascorbic acid and sodium bisulfite. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 36(1):89-75) not to mention Linus Pauling, to quote just a few via Levy. These and many others suffice to demonstrate that Klenner was not alone in his beliefs, and that while interest in Vitamin C as an antiviral is not generally accepted, there is a continued and abiding interest in the ideas behind Klenner's pioneering work. Wikipedia has pages dedicated to rock and roll musicians few would be caught listening to dead, which confirms me in my belief that there's also space for Klenner and his work on wikipedia.--Alterrabe 18:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
- As my point was that the Vitamin C has been the subject of continous interest as an antiviral, which Klenner pioneered it's wholly besides the point if they did so independently of Klenner.--Alterrabe 17:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I think it's sufficiently demonstrated that he is important within the literature relating to this field, and the Fultz quad connection adds notability that's not solely connected with this angle. I think the Doctoyourself.com bio, as it's reprinting an obit from J Orthomolecular Med, 2007. Vol 22, No 1, p 31-38., is OK as source for filling out basic biographical details. That said, I think that article needs scrutiny for WP:SOAP; it looks somewhat a coatrack for vitamin C. And the AFD looks iffy too, both for the original blanket nomination on basis of orthomolecular topics, and for the level of soapboxing in opposition to this (I'm also suspicious of the arrival of an entirely new account, the majority of whose edits are to defend this article at AFD). Gordonofcartoon 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that you refer to me. Your suspicion is wholly misplaced. I was, as I stated, prompted to find out how to do this precisely because I was outraged that David Horrobin's page was tagged as "not notable" or whatever. Good grief, I proved this quite adequately above. This is an open contribution resource- what on earth is the issue here? My edits to the page itself and my contributions on this one should be judged on one criterion alone: do they or do they not establish notability for David Horrobin. The answer is obviously that of course they do. What would it matter if I was new, old, or the fairy godmother? Brigantian 11:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. But yes, it does matter. As I said elsewhere, although it is indeed an open contribution resource, in practice the appearance of new editors solely for an AFD is a common form of abuse of the AFD process, so it pretty well always raises suspicion, especially if the topic is contentious. Gordonofcartoon 11:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gordonofcartoon- is that from the Robert Girardi novel Madeleine's Ghost? I remember it being used as a joke in a mugging scene. Well, it is not so in this case, and I feel I have demonstrated that amply enough. Also, can you or anyone else please tell me how and when the "delete" tag will be removed from David Horrobin's site? Brigantian 11:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Comment Are you calling Orthomolecular Medicine a "Fringe" therapy? Are you building to a RFD for the whole subject? We are arguing here about the notability of Fred Klenner yet you return in you arguments to your belief that OM is fringe and it seems by your behaviour, you want all articles related to it to be deleted. Wikipedia is not paper and there is room for articles on notable people in all fields. Thats what makes WP bigger better and more useful than a paper encyclopedia. Your campaign is blatant POV pushing and censorship. Lumos3 08:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I urge you to reread WP:DELETE, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FRINGE. Comments like the one above are very likely to strengthen Djma12's arguments when the uninvolved closing admin makes a final assessment. Instead, you would do better to explain why you feel that Klenner's theories and findings do not meet WP:FRINGE, citing acceptable third-party sources. Avb 11:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By my understanding of the issues of hand, the exact opposite is true. Lumos3 makes some highly pertinent observations; while there is no scientific consensus on the viability of orthomolecular medicine, there is no debating that various countries in Europe, Asia, and, to a lesser degree North America, have societies of physicians who practice orthomolecular medicine. http://www.orthomed.org/ISOM/societies.htm and patients who willingly pay for their services. Although I believe I can understand the thinking that would lead it to it, I am strongly against a USA-centric approach to this article, which would presumably have it that since orthomolecular medicine is all but unknown in the United States, it cannot be valid.
- Here, too, there is a historical precedent: in the 1970s, acupuncture was regarded as quackery in the United States and banned; today the NIH consensus statement states that: the data in support of acupuncture are as strong as those for many accepted Western medical therapies. To have insisted in the 1970s that acupuncture not be included in an encyclopedia because it "wasn't practiced here" would have defeated the entire purpose of an encyclopedia which is to educate and inform. To argue that orthomolecular medicine should be excluded or that it is invalid (as opposed to highly controversial) because it "isn't practiced here" would be as wise as refusing to even discuss acupuncture in the 1970s.--Alterrabe 15:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Over half of the listed therapies in the orthomed article involve Klenner, an attack on Klenner is frequently an attack on orthomed and vice versa, in some ways more so than Pauling.--TheNautilus 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you're absolutely right there and I should have mentioned that in my comment: My access to WoS goes until 1975, after Klenner stopped publishing. However, it appears that only a few of his articles got very few citations since 1975, so it looks like his work never made much impact. The current article mentions that Klenner published 28 papers, which is not a very large productivity. If some (or even one) of those papers had made a huge impact, that would establish notability. As it is, I don't think this person is notable. --Crusio 10:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- since my access goes back to 1900, I rechecked, but did not find any more. South Med J Volume: 113 Issue: 4 Pages: 101-7 Published: 1951 Apr has been cited 5 times, and South Med J Volume: 114 Issue: 8 Pages: 194-7 Published: 1952 Aug has been cited once. As for Medical Hypotheses, my understanding is that it deliberately publishes material that may be interesting and important, but not yet supported by evidence-in other, words, hypotheses. Scientific journals normally only publish hypotheses supported by evidence--there is surely a role for journals such as this--and this is a very well know and reputable one, but is not evidence that anyone has ever paid attention to the hypothesis. DGG (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...so it looks like his work never made much impact in increasingly notorious pharma sponsored journals, virtually a raison d'être for there being both orthomolecular and patented ("conventional") toximolecular medicines rather than just a unitary molecular medicine. For his age, Klenner has substantial coverage, beyond pharma captive journals coverage with insultingly thin deprecations of a mortal economic enemy (uncontrolled nutrients, economically "worse" than imported generic drugs). As for his publications, this was for a real, practicing doctor, in an age long before academic "minimum publishing units", with a substantial number of breath taking claims (to me, too). Klenner was clearly a man abrest of the advanced/experimental nutritional/vitamin science of his day, integrating current information with his clinical observations in real time, acutely observant in science without the frills, practicing as an unfunded, unsubsidized doctor, against the status quo. ~50 years after Klenner discusses metal enhanced oxidative mechanisms with IV vitamin C, Klenner's disciple, Riordan, holds NIH's feet to the fire, and now you see the CMAJ, PNAS, NIH papers that essentially say, "oh, yeah, thaattt IV vitamin C oxidative mechanism". So who were the real (non-)notable scientific boobs and reliable sources?
- Again he is not some endowed, corporate or university scientist or conventional physician, rather a more humanitarian, citizen-scientist and country doctor persona important to orthomolecular medicine, and recently to mainstream research, a belated 50+ years.--TheNautilus 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- TheNautilus, I appreciate that you feel very strongly about orthomedicine. But your arguments above don't hold. First it seems like you argue that the very fact that "mainstream" journals do not cite Klenner proves his notability. Then it appears that his ideas are now being accepted. But then why is he hardly ever cited? The simple truth is that his work has basically gone unnoticed. And journals like PNAS are really not "pharma sponsored journals". Notability is not the same thing as being right or wrong. Some people become notable because they were wrong. Some other people were right about something and still don't become notable. Your arguments in this section only underscore to me what is becoming abundantly clear: Klenner is not notable in any encyclopedic sense. And I really start losing patience with this uncessant bashing of "mainstream science" as if "mainstream" equals "wrong". I change my "delete" vote above to strong delete. --Crusio 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are missing my arguments. (1) I am not bashing "mainstream science", I am critical of those who have clearly abused it and fundamentally misused its name, often in economically conflicted medical journals that have not used scientific rigor in many ways. (2) I am citing PNAS articles to support my position that Klenner's ideas and protocols have broken into the mainstream via later authors who write/speak highly, and (WP:)notably, of Klenner. (3) I am simply saying don't count on finding much in conventional medical magazines, because of the intensely prejudical medical history of this subject and various large, economic conflicts of interest in certain quarters. (4) nn - is your opinion, unsupported by FRK's first use or discovery of *authoritatively demonstrated phenomena* that have global dimension *if finally conventionally examined & medically accepted* dispite great previous prejudice. Your argument disregards Wikipedia:Notability (people) as I started to cover in detail at FRK:talk. Biographies, books about, national front page results, as well as authoritative interest on broad scale therapies erroneously ridiculed, some editors here appear to be in total denial.--TheNautilus 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Klenner's work made 1946 national front page news with the survival of the Fultz quads[12][13] at birth. Riordan, co-author on recent high dose C treatments on cancer cases with NIH's Mark Levine (conventional recognition)[14][15] and related work [16], wrote a chapter in his book, Medical Mavericks profiling Klenner as well as in numerous speeches[17]. Ewan Cameron and Pauling were initially interested in directly testing much stronger Klennerian cancer regimes (e.g. 40 - 50 grams / day) but had too little support (and too much resistance) to proceed past 10 grams/day IV vitamin C for 7- 10 days ("Vitamin C and Cancer", Pauling, 1st ed), a milder Klennerian regime. Klenner's work was acknowledged by Pauling in the foreword of The Clinical Guide to Vitamin C and Pauling's collection at OSU libraries has a copy of Klenner's 1960's book. Thomas Levy, former professor at Tulane medical school, wrote a *whole book* discussing, updating the published evidence on IV vitamin C for various medical conditions in a book dedicated to Klenner and his IV vitamin C work. Cathcart's 1978 interview with the American Chemical Soc acknowledges Klenner's IV ascorbate inspired development of (maximum) oral vitamin C dosing to bowel tolerance for illnesses. Klenner has a recent biography in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (2007). Clemetson, whose (fragmented) quotes ca late 1970s/early 80s were used as mainstream sound bites against Pauling in the media as to what had been officially proven, built up data that showed an inverse correlation for histamine and ascorbate in the blood levels and histamine neutralization to hydantoin as another mechanism that support claims of benefits in the Klennerian regimes. Clemetson, a bulwark of mainstream medicine on vitamin C in the 70s/80s press, came to inject infants with 500mg ascobate, a Klennerian first shot, immediately upon signs of adverse vaccine reactions. The recent[18] and current medical trials by Jeanne Drisko at U Kansas are Klennerian levels of IV sodium ascorbate for cancer treatment.--TheNautilus 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, who seem to have a clear consensus (ie. a combination of number and strength of argument, combined at appropriate weighting). I found the arguments in response to the WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS arguments to be insufficient in closing this as no consensus. Daniel 08:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cosmic Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete, unsalvageable OR and nonsense that I was just a hair away from speedy deleting. This appears to be an attempt to describe fictional representations of "energy" as the basis of superpowers. It is confused from start to finish ("cosmic energy is a fictional type of matter"??), and consists of little more than nonsensical statements ("Several examples of real world Cosmic Energy are: Lighting, Neuclear Energy, Lasers, Fire, and Radiation") and unfounded generalizations. The very premise of this is furthermore flawed, as there is no common use of the term "cosmic energy" from one work of fiction to another, let alone a universal underpinning of the fictional "physics." We already have a list of superpowers that can list and compare. Postdlf 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article should NOT be deleted becuase their is NO article for Cosmic Energy/Energy Fields and Forces in fiction. There is an article for every character you can imagine, many of whom harness energy, but there is no article for such. Maybe a title change to ENERGY (fiction) is all that is needed. But by no mean should it be deleted. Perhaps rethought, but I thought my job as a Wikipedian was to expand Wikipedia to make it closer to completion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman622 (talk • contribs)
- I did some major editing, but I don't appreciate your personal attacks on how "horribly written" my article was. If it's so bad then why don't you get off your wikibutt AND HELP EDIT IT! The point of wikipedia is not to delete every new article because it is complete, it is to do everything in your power to guide those articles to completion, and make it to where they are not "horribly written". So I'm sorry if I didn't satisfy you high and mighty critics, but anyone can be a critic. It takes a real wikipedian to deliver. Now. I would appreciate any and all help if you can stop insulting me for about ten seconds, look over the article and put your edits in. I'm only an ameture wiki people, give me a break and help me out! Thank you, and I hope I won't have to say it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman622 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why so defensive? My comment about your article was NOT a personal attack (see, I can use uppercase letters too). I have been on wikipedia for quite a while, so I can easily tell a good article from a bad one. I personally don't want to help with the article since I have my own to work on. And please sign your name properly with "~~~~" each time you leave a reply. --Ghostexorcist 06:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the main problem with your article is that cosmic energy has been used in such an inconsistent and vague manner across fictional universes that it would be impossible to create an useful article around such a term. For every usage example you provide, someone is going to provide another that says "no it works this way". Original research is the only way you could complete the article - and we don't do original research. sorry. --Fredrick day 20:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never show me the odds. I'm going to create this fricking article, or have my fingers fall off trying. I don't care if it doesn't get made into an article. At least I fufilled my duty as a wikipedian "make wikipedia as complete and accurate as possible." Thank you for your input, thank you for being polite, and I will take that into consdieration when writing the future edits of this article (maybe an edit war will even start). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman622 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I applaud you for your enthusiam, but it looks like the article is going to be deleted any way. However, I hope you can rewrite it in your sandbox and actually provide comic book or scholarly book citations to support your claims before activating the page again. --Ghostexorcist 06:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really believed that this article could be saved, then you'd be advocating that it be turned into a stub for later fleshing out into an article without OR. By advocating to delete, you are saying that this article will never amount to anything. -- Lilwik 07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it's a "stub" doesn't mean it can be OR either, so I'm confused as to what you think would comprise this hypothetical stub. Postdlf 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you are aware of what a stub usually is! A stub is just a simple description of what the article is to be about, to later be expanded into a real article with real content and sources and everything. The purpose of a stub is to show other articles that they can link to here where there probably will one day be an article, and to encourage editors to help create an article. This article is already a stub, but it's a stub with editing problems that needs to have a bunch of OR cut out and a stub tag added. As always, the solution to OR and bad writing is editing, not AFD. -- Lilwik 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't ask what stubs look like generally, I asked what a valid stub on this topic (whatever it might be) would consist of, seeing as the posting is 100% OR. What would this "simple description" state and upon what reliable source(s) would it be based? Postdlf 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must admit that I don't actually know what cosmic energy is, but I have heard of it often enough to be pretty sure that it is important. I'm not specifically qualified to work on this article or provide sources for it, but I do know that most of the arguments being put forward for the deletion of this article are actually editing issues. For deletion, we should be arguing about things like notability of cosmic energy. I think before this AFD was started, someone should have done bold editing and replaced the content of this article with something like, "Cosmic energy is a phenomenon related to outerspace in numerous works of fiction," then marked it with citations needed and lacking sources and being a stub, so that people who know what they are doing can make it better. You wouldn't have even needed any discussion to do that, but of course it can't be done while the article is up for AFD. -- Lilwik 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? That's what you're trying to save here? A single sentence that is meaninglessly vague beyond invoking the generic association of the word "cosmic" with outer space. Move along, folks. There's absolutely nothing to see here. Postdlf 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that is worthy of an article all by itself. I'm suggesting that we make this a stub so it can be brought to the attention of people who look for stubs to flesh out, and to the attention of all the projects who might be interested in it, where people might know more about it than we do, like the Paranormal project and Science Fiction project and the Comics project. I'm saying that if we give it a reasonable chance, it might grow into a good article. It's hasn't been given enough time and it hasn't been categorized properly; there has been no chance for people who might know about this stuff to work on it. -- Lilwik 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced and original research, as indicated above. To the creator: you have several days to improve the article to the point where it can meet our guidelines, but you must ensure that it meets verifiability standards and uses reliable sources to back it up. If it hasn't been written about by others, it's probably not going to fly here, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete LOL trippy!:) To the articles creator- if it does get deleted don't dispair- my first article was too.Merkinsmum 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.
Keep. I agree that the current article is no good, but that just means that it needs heavy work done, very heavy work. It should probably be stripped down to the barest essentials and made into a stub. Then we should watch to make sure that no OR is added into it. However, it is such a commonly reference subject that I think it is certain that we should have an article on it. It just needs to be a better article than this. It could be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal maybe, as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. A badly written article is grounds for editing, not grounds for deletion. -- Lilwik 22:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's far more than just poor writing—it doesn't contain a single statement that isn't incorrect or an unverifiable generality. I'm not sure I even know what the subject is supposed to be, as it starts off as if "cosmic energy" is some kind of discrete concept or force (it "resembles rays of colored light"?? according to what?) but then goes on to equivocate any use of the word "energy" in sci-fi/fantasy (and reality) as if it all referred to something similar. It then seems to be some attempt at a fictional unified field theory, using "cosmic energy" as underlying any kind of "energy," yet this clearly isn't something that is an express or even implied premise in every work that has any semblance of the fictional phenomenon listed. It shows no grounding in any particular fictional canon and does not even accurately represent what could be considered common fictional themes. Plus it shows absolutely no understanding of energy in reality, which is kind of necessary if you're going to distinguish what is fictional about its treatment in fiction. The author was clearly making it up as he went along and at best confusedly remembering a few stories he may have read—how else do you explain nonsensical assertions such as the "forms of Cosmic Energy in the real world," or that "electrical energy" is "most commonly used by mechanical characters"? As I said above, the only germ of this that has any validity is in cataloging different superpowers in fiction and their purported physical sources, for which we already have list of superpowers. Postdlf 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not suggesting that we keep the writing. I'm just suggesting that we keep the article as a stub so that it can be replaced with all new and better writing someday, and scrap most of the current content. Deleting the article is saying that we never want an article about cosmic energy. It's not only saying that this article is worthless, but also that this article cannot ever be improved to meet Wikipedia standards. -- Lilwik 04:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment- Lilwik, see the articles Energy Energy (spirituality) as you can see these articles cover all the subject matter of this article, the mention of mages etc may be referring to Magic or Magick, though more likely is from online gaming. So you can see we have an article for everything he mentions except the use of an energy in fiction, which is yet to be defined narrowly enough to write an article about, and for the article to decide on its own definition would be original research anyway.Merkinsmum 23:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Energy in fiction seems to be a fairly big oversight, actually. It is referenced very frequently in fiction to the point where it is more notable than most individual works of fiction that we have articles on. There may be some difficulties in writing a good article on that subject, but that doesn't mean that we should take away people's chance to try. -- Lilwik 04:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Psychic energy is cosmic energy? Mystical energy? Electrical energy? Who's defining cosmic? Who defines what types of energy are cosmic? Oh, right, a reliable source... Which is notably lacking. Yes, this is Original research of the obvious kind. - jc37 06:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Radman622 does not know about the Power Cosmic article. --Ghostexorcist 06:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another article that might be important in this discussion is Cosmic ray, which one might consider a kind of cosmic energy. -- Lilwik 07:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why, because they both use the word "cosmic"? Postdlf 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that alot of speculation is neccesary to tie together every fiction ever written, and I understand that many of you will be flabberghasted by the concept of such an article, but the fact that the article contains OR does not mean delete it! I simply means that I need you high and might wikipedians who can so easily sit back and criticize to HELP ME IMPROVE IT! DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN PLAY HOLIER THAN THOU FOR A CHANGE! ARE YOU AFRAID OF WORK? This article has left a sour taste of Wikipedia in my mouth. I try to do my job as a wikipeian which is to expand wikipedia (the ultimate goal of wikipedia is completeness) and what thanks do I get? Personal insults and snide comments! Well let me tell you something. You can do whatever you want to my article, I don't care anymore. I'm not going to even try to save it with critics like you hovering over it, but personal insult I will not stand for. So I'm not even checking in again until a month from now. You people can either sit here and go on and on about my poor writing skills, my lack of knowledge on the subject and my original research, or you can try to make it work like REAL wikipedians. But trust me, I'm not placing any bets on you people. Radman 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman622 (talk • contribs)
- I agree with most of those, but I really don't think WP:NFT applies. There may not be any sources given, but the editors of this article did not make up the concept of cosmic energy themselves. It is a real concept that could have a real encyclopedia article one day. -- Lilwik 18:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lilwik, I hadn't seen this before but take a look at the Power Cosmic article User:Ghostexorcist pointed out. This is a duplicate article. Radman622 no-one is picking on you, but the entire concept is in that article already, so another one isn't needed- you can do your excellent work there.Merkinsmum 21:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly certain that the concept of cosmic energy doesn't begin or end with the Silver Surfer. I haven't been able to get any specific examples, but I'm almost sure that the concept of cosmic energy has a long and colorful history through science fiction. I'd like to see an article that talks about the various ways that it has been used as an idea in fiction and how that relates to real science. The thing I like most about Wikipedia is the amazing way that no matter what I want to look up, I can almost always find it here. Wikipedia is better than Google, and so it should be, but Google gets 294,000 results on "cosmic energy", and this article is all that Wikipedia has to offer. Wikipedia deserves more than it has now, not less. -- Lilwik 00:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But as "cosmic" is a word generically used to evoke the wonders and mysteries of outer space, there isn't any reason to think that its pairing with the word "energy" has any consistent meaning across works of fiction beyond a fanciful term raising an obvious connotation of, well, "energy from outer space!!! Woooooooo!!!" (ahem) If it is instead a consistent and substantive concept in fiction (e.g., psionics), then one shouldn't have any problem finding reliable sources that establish that, and meaningfully define the concept through an intertextual synthesis. Until that happens, garbage like this certainly isn't going to be left up just to add "more." And if a reliable source synthesizing "cosmic energy" in fiction has never been published, that objective can't be inaugurated here. Postdlf 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- lol at the theme music Postdlf. I did think the Power Cosmic article could be expanded to include other types of fictional 'stuff'. I've never heard of Silverthingy.:) But Postdlf is right, it would be WP:OR to state that there is a similar force to that posited in many other fictional works, if no-one reliable has said it before (even if it were true.)Merkinsmum 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but who are we to say that it hasn't been done? No one is suggesting leaving this garbage up. All I am suggesting is letting it be a stub for a few months to see if anyone has something useful to edit in about it. I can't claim that I know of any secondary sources that unify the concept of cosmic energy across works of fiction, but they could exist. At the very least this article could become a survey of how cosmic energy appears in various works of fiction, couldn't it? -- Lilwik 04:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're (at least I'm) not saying "There shouldn't be an article on this subject" we're saying "The current article is unsalvageable, remove it and if someone can write a better version, they can recreate the article". Having a stub would not achieve anything useful. By all means move to userspace and continue to work on it there, but it doesn't belong in article space until such time as reliable sources can be used to verify that the contents of the article are not original research. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we remove the article without leaving a stub in its place, then we are exactly saying that there shouldn't be an article on this subject. If there should be an article on this subject then there should be a stub for people to link to and later fill in with a better article than what we have here. Deleting this now would make it much easier for any future article on this subject to be deleted, as well. -- Lilwik 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- em no it wouldn't - a well sourced article making use of multiple realiable sources and avoiding OR is hard to delete. You are making an argument to the future. Policy is clear - this article should be deleted and that is no barrier to recreation in the future. --Fredrick day 19:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That sort of article is hard to delete, but almost no article ever starts out that way. An article needs to go through a growing process, starting out as a low quality article and slowly improving over time. Obviously the article we have is no starting point, but people will always be able to cite this AfD in deleting any starting-quality article that ever comes up on this subject. And having no stub is hardly an invitation to build an article. -- Lilwik 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And policy does not say that this article should be deleted. It is not clear on that at all. OR and lack of sources is an editing issue. There is no policy that clearly shows this article should be deleted rather than improved. -- Lilwik 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- and what is left if we remove the unsourced or original research material? anyone the question is moot, this article WILL be deleted - it's pretty much WP:SNOW. --Fredrick day 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A stub is left. This isn't WP:SNOW. Someone has to defend articles from being deleted for WP:OR or bad writing, because WP:OR and bad writing aren't grounds for deletion of any article. If you want grounds for deletion, look to WP:N or WP:NFT or similar things that indicate articles that shouldn't exist rather than should be corrected and improved. If we really must delete this article, then turn it into a stub, put it into the correct categories, and then wait a few months to prove that this subject has nowhere it can go. That would be grounds for deletion. -- Lilwik 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lilwik, I think you're generally confused as to policy and the pragmatic consequences of policy. WP:OR means that, where OR is identified as such, it is removed. It isn't tolerated as a gap-filler, and an OR stub is no more permissible than an OR full-length article. Even a stub has to be verifiable and based on reliable sources. Here there simply is no non-OR basis for even identifying and substantiating the article's topic, let alone defining it; you said yourself you don't even really know what it's supposed to be about. Nothing has been submitted out of which a valid stub can be constructed, not even a single valid sentence. And I also disagree that a redlink for a particular article title is somehow more discouraging to development, and less preferable, than completely inaccurate and made-up garbage posted under that title. Further, an article deleted through AFD on the basis of OR does not preclude the posting of an article on the same topic or under the same title that is not OR; the scope of an AFD is always limited to the rationale(s) for deletion. Postdlf 19:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every statement needs sources. We are allowed to state the obvious and things which we cannot reasonably expect to ever be disputed. We can make a perfectly good little stub for this article even if none of us know anything substantial about the subject matter. A red link very much encourages an article to be developed, but it also encourages the link to be removed from articles, until soon the problem is solved by forgetting about cosmic energy rather than expanding Wikipedia. -- Lilwik 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are allowed to state the obvious and things which we cannot reasonably expect to ever be disputed. so if it's so obvious - what's cosmic energy? Feel free to add two sourced statements to the article that explains it. --Fredrick day 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I didn't make myself clear. We are allowed to make statements like that without sources. We don't source every statement on Wikipedia, only the ones that might be disputed. Just look at what WP:V actually says about the requirement to have statements be verifiable: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. That's not all statements, just some of them. It's only deletionists who try to twist WP:V into meaning that absolutely everything must have a source. Personally, I'm not really in a position to help with this article, but the principle is still the same. -- Lilwik 21:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't source every statement on Wikipedia, only the ones that might be disputed. Yes and the main part of this HAS been disputed - well actually reading the article, I'd actually dispute every sentence of it. I'm baffled why you are defending this article so much when you have already said you don't have any clue about the content. We are going around in circles here - it is clear from the discussion here that this article WILL be deleted. I have nothing further to say on the matter unless someone improves the article by adding sources. --Fredrick day 21:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't like this discussion, then it would be better if you stopped misinterpreting the statements of others and thereby giving them motivation to correct the misinterpretation. I also have lost interest in this, because the article just isn't that important, but I'm baffled by how you could be unintentionally twisting my words around like that. I never said that there was anything worth keeping in this article. I've said the opposite several times. If you look at the context of the words you quoted from me, you will surely see that I was talking about writing a stub that would contain minimal sources in response to your challenge to me to create a stub that had sources for its every statement. -- Lilwik 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I took ALL of the useful information in that article, and made it a stub. You can find it in my userspace here: User:M2Ys4U/Cosmic_Energy. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the most awesome stub I've ever seen. Thank you for that. : ) Postdlf 14:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I guess you've convinced me. I wouldn't want to make the stub myself and it seems that no one else here could do it well either. If we can't write a good stub then we have no choice but to delete. If cosmic energy is important enough, I hope that someone will create a new article one day. -- Lilwik 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL User:M2Ys4U, that is, like, the best stub evar!:)Merkinsmum 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep both the list and the article. Many have commented that the main article on nontheism is just OR. However, a number of other editors have pointed out that it's not OR, and is referenced in the etymology section, which is the case, with reasonable references. This the central reason for deleting the article doesn't really stand up. With the list, there are a wide variety of suggestions with what to do with it. Some would like it deleted, for reasons such as it's an indiscriminate list of information, that it's not sourced properly, and of course because their is no such thing as "nontheism". Many others would like it kept, or are at least ambivalent towards it (which is not really helpful in determining whether to delete or keep the article!) My reasons for keeping the list are that there is nothing stopping editors from sourcing the article more thoroughly, and that it actually is useful to know who counts themselves as a nontheist. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of nontheists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I have nominated two articles for deletion - Nontheism and List of nontheists.
These two articles should be deleted for the following reasons:
- The word nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007. Thus, it fails WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a place to define new terms. There are no reliable sources which clearly define nontheism. It fails WP:V.
- The definition of nontheists in the List of nontheists is incorrect. According to the list, the definition of nontheists is: "A nontheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God or deities." This is a definition of atheist. And, there is no reliable source which define nontheist as someone who does not believe in the existence of God or deities. Thus, it fails WP:V.
- To call someone a nontheist can be problematic. They may them self reject such label. On list of nontheists many famous people who have never identified themselves as a nontheist are identified as a nontheist. Wikipedia is the only place where such label is used.
- Many people consider nontheism to be just another term for atheism. There is no point in having separate articles. RS1900 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. RS1900 13:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge - Redirect nontheism to atheism, and delete List of nontheists entirely.-- Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge as per Floaterfluss. - Pureblade | Θ 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as suggested--the definition is too controversial, and as stated, does not correspond to the entries. The entries--at least the ones for other lists--seem to use the logical "people, other than theists"-- but however logical, that it not a standard term and proves confusing. DGG (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both.
- Existence and use of the term is attested to by multiple sources, as cited in the Nontheism article. Words and concepts that are defined by reliable third party sources are legitimate subjects of Wikipedia articles, even if major dictionaries have not yet caught up enough to document them. Besides, non-theist and non-theistic are defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, so even if one accepts the "it's not in a dictionary, so it shouldn't be in Wikipedia" argument, an article on nontheists is in order.
- The definition is correct, per the OED definitions for non-theist and theist. A non-theist is "A person who is not a theist." A theist is "a person who believes in God or gods" or "a person who believes in one God who created and intervenes in the universe."
- The definition in the List of nontheists is the same as a definition of "atheist," but it is not the definition. As documented in Atheism (a feature article), some definitions of that word specify that only those who deny the existence of a deity are atheists, which would mean that not all nontheists are atheists. Also, agnostics are nontheists, yet agnosticism is commonly considered to be a position distinct from atheism.
- Calling someone a nontheist is not problematic, as it does not bear the same potentially pejorative sense long carried by the label atheist (as in "godless" or "immoral.") I suppose one could call them "people who do not believe in God," but nontheist is perfectly descriptive of that position--it says the same thing.
- Wikipedia is not the only place where the label nontheist is used. It has been used by the sources the OED referred to when making its entry for "non-theist," and by the many sources cited in the Nontheism article.
- Many people do consider nontheism to be just another term for atheism. But that is just one point of view among many. Many people also consider nontheism to be a category that contains atheism, but also contains other positions that are not atheism. That's why there ought to be separate articles. A redirect is inappropriate.
- Whether a term is potentially confusing has no import on whether it ought to have an article. Atheism is a potentially confusing term, with multiple points of view as to its "standard" definition, yet it remains, and ought to. English vocabulary, theology and philosophy aren't always clean and easy to understand, but articles relating to these sometimes messy issues still fulfill the proper role of an encyclopedia.
- At best, these arguments point to a need for additional sourcing and edits to clarify, not deletion, merging or redirecting. Arguments based on the contention that nontheism = atheism are dependent on a particular point of view, and any action based on such reasoning runs counter to WP:NPOV. Nick Graves 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick, you are right. Non-theist and non-theistic are defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. However, Nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007. Thus, it fails WP:OR.
- A non-theist is "A person who is not a theist." How do you define theism? A theist is "a person who believes in God or gods". Here God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Thus, a nontheist can believe in an impersonal God. On List of nontheists we have people who have clearly stated that they do not believe in any God - personal or impersonal.
- You said "agnostics are nontheists". That's incorrect. An agnostic believe that the existance of God is unknown. One cannot prove or disprove the existance of God. Agnosticism is a state of neither belief or disbelief. Thus, nontheists are not agnostics.
- That's your POV.
- Nick, can you find a single source where Nontheism is not connected to atheism? No. That's the problem. RS1900 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nontheism and Delete list. The list is pretty useless, and is often a point of contention except in clear cases of self-identification. But nontheism is a distinctly separate term implying a form of atheistic belief (just like agnosticism is often considered to be in the family of atheistic thought). If necessary, I can go into more detail about the differences, but I feel the article makes this sufficiently clear. To be perfectly honest, only someone who doesn't know squat about the subject could think it is simply an analogy for atheism, just read the source material for pete's sake. VanTucky Talk 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way are entries on the list a point of contention? If you're talking about the nontheist groups listed, I'm inclined to agree. I added that section to address concerns of T. Anthony, who favored more inclusiveness for the list. I'd favor deleting that section if other editors agree that it is potentially contentious. What do you mean by self-identification? Do you mean only persons who have specifically used the word "nontheist" for themselves? Can persons who have simply said "I don't believe in God" be considered to have identified themselves as nontheists, even if they don't use the word? I believe they can, given the literal meaning of the word, and the fact that, unlike atheist, nontheist is merely descriptive of a position, without a potentially pejorative sense. Nick Graves 22:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick, you said, "nontheist is merely descriptive of a position, without a potentially pejorative sense." Well, that's your POV. RS1900 03:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both.
Delete article, Keep list. Nontheist is just a way of saying "not a theist", as is made clear by the word itself and the article. Therefore, the concept of nontheism is sufficiently covered by good coverage of Theism. Most of the article is just explaining the word, which is useless because the meaning of the word is obvious. On the other hand, the list of nontheistic groups is interesting because it shows at a glance the groups that don't require a belief in gods, and the list of nontheists is interesting and it is far easier to assemble than a list of atheists, because atheism is harder to show than nontheism. I think the sources cited are sufficient to show nontheism for the people listed, so there is nothing wrong with this list. -- Lilwik 20:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lilwik, even if the meaning of nontheism is obvious, the Nontheism article does a good job of documenting its etymology and the history of its usage, and points out such facts as the word's macaronic nature, which would not be obvious to most readers. Besides, an encyclopedia's job is to document subjects no matter their level of complexity or obviousness. That's why we have such articles as Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Nick Graves 17:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point. Okay, you've convinced me. The fact that nontheism isn't in the dictionary just makes it all the more interesting as a topic, since it's a word with a history and a real, interesting etymology that is not in common usage. -- Lilwik 18:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both The premise of both articles is that there is a belief system called "nontheism" that is not exactly the same as atheism or agnosticism, and that certain famous people are nontheists. The problem I have with both articles is the, pardon the expression, "holier than thou" approach by someone who holds himself or herself out to be a theologian who doesn't need anything to back up statements. Thus, we are told that "Most agnostics are nontheists, though there are some agnostic theists." Was there a survey of some sort? And "All atheists are nontheists in the narrow and broad senses of the word". And "Certain Buddhists believe the Buddha to be a deity". If you were smart, of course, you would KNOW these things already. Sorry, I don't buy it. Mandsford 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments seem odd and self-contradictory. "If you are smart, of course, you would know these things already," makes it sound as though you think the article is correct. "I don't buy it," seems to have the opposite meaning. Are you saying that smart people know these things are true, but you say they're false? -- Lilwik 22:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such premise to these articles, and I find your tone unnecessarily condescending. johnpseudo 23:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandsford, your comment borders on being a personal attack. Even if you were correct that the editor has a "holier than thou" attitude, that has no bearing on whether the article should be deleted. If the tone of the prose is haughty, then it ought to be edited accordingly. Tone is not grounds for deletion. The need for sources to back up claims is a substantive criticism, and I have removed the "Nontheist groups" section of the list pending documentation of the claims made there. The remainder of the list--the definitions of the word, and the individual entries--are all well documented by reliable sources. Nick Graves 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aw gee, three in a row? The "If you were smart" comment was my attempt at sarcasm. The point is that when one challenges someone about a "fact" that is tossed out with no proof, the response is often, "Well everyone knows that!". It's a wonderful tool for manipulation, and something that you should be aware of. This article is full of such "facts", like "most agnostics are nontheists" or, "certain Buddhists" do thus and such. If I were to say "Most patriots are Republicans", would you assume that it was true? Or, more likely, would you say, "Mandford, where's your proof of that?" I didn't intend to attack Nick Graves personally -- I didn't check to see who the authors or contributors were, and I don't know Nick from Adam -- but I do attack the articles. Writing style can be fixed easily, but locating sources isn't as easy a fix. Mandsford 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandsford, don't listen to Nick Graves. He said: "The remainder of the list--the definitions of the word, and the individual entries--are all well documented by reliable sources". None of that is true. The definition of the non-theist on List of nontheists is incorrect. List of nontheists is "anything goes" type of list. RS1900 03:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's true. Look at the article. Look at the references. The section that Mandsford criticized is gone, since it had no sources. The definition of nontheist in the article is incorrect only if the Oxford English Dictinary is incorrect. Are you contending, RS, that the OED is not a reliable enough source to be worthy of use for Wikipedia articles? The list is not an "anything goes" type of list--it has clear criteria, and all entries are sourced. RS is misrepresenting this article. Nick Graves 01:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick, you are misrepresenting the List of nontheists. I can inculde even a proponent of Intelligent design who rejects the theistic concept of God on List of nontheists. Thus, both proponents of ID and proponents of atheism can be include on List of nontheists. RS1900 14:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments on the list I think the list is intrinsically worthless because there will be nobody to include. Most of the people now there say they are atheists. They belong in the atheist list if its relevant to their notability--some are.. Agnostics, belong in their appropriate list. Any pantheists, likewise, and deists, and Buddhists, and so forth. So who would be in it--all of the above? we don't do super-lists like that --it would be like a "List of alumni of American colleges, as well as the specific ones. Or "List of major-party members of Congress" Or "List of MPs other than Conservative" There may be some people whose beliefs are so totally nonspecific that they fit in no other category: but that is not a manageable basis for a list, which requires some degree of consistency. How does one classify someone who says "I mean, I don't believe in God, I don't believe in heaven or hell, but I pray three or four times a day." I classify him as as confused. Do we really want a "List of people with confused ideas of religion"? Even if it were useful, it's POV, and would require that they be shown not to have ever said something more definable. Or consider: "I don't believe in God, but I believe God invented four-tracks" --I classify that as a clever phrase that may or may not have any connection to actual religious belief. Further, we don't usually include people in these lists unless it is in some way relevant to their notability or career. I can not see how the fact that some one has such a vague belief can possible have such belief relevant to anything important about themselves. DGG (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, none of the people in the list have identified as atheists, agnostics or otherwise — if you can demonstrate otherwise they only need be transferred to the appropriate list. This excludes very minor subdivisions - only a handful of people identify as ignostics, so it would not be appropriate to start a five-name list for them. That very small list, along with people who do not believe in deities but do not identify as atheists, agnostics or other major groups, would belong in the list. Lists (as opposed to categories) very frequently include people to whose notability the subject is not important - including the vast majority of college alumni to which you refer. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we do do super-lists. Just see Lists of people. SwitChar is right about none of those listed being identified as atheists or agnostics. That's why the list was started in the first place--to document persons who do not have theistic belief, but who, for one reason or another, cannot be definitively categorized as atheist, agnostic, etc. That's one of the advantages that Wikipedia's List of atheists and its sister List of nontheists has over other online sources that document notable people's religious disbelief--the Wikipedia lists apply much more rigorous criteria and base entries only on reliable sources. As for the individual examples you cite, those are only two entries, which alone do not undermine the legitimacy of the entire list. If editors contend that a jokey comment or a confused statement aren't enough for inclusion, then they can be challenged and removed. Nick Graves 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both. Per the well thought-out arguments of Nick Graves. Nontheism is a useful, well-documented term, and the list is fairly non-contentious and informative. johnpseudo 23:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpseudo, the word nontheism is not defined by any notable dictionaries as of 2007. The definition of nontheists is totally incorrect. How can we have such article and list? Both should be deleted. You said that the list is fairly non-contentious and informative. Really? Almost all people on List of nontheists have clearly said "I don't believe in God". When someone says "I don't believe in God", he is an atheist. And, there is no source which clearly define nontheism. RS1900 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of this is true. Nontheist is defined by the OED. Dictionaries do not need to define a term for it to be notable per WP:NEO. Mere absence of belief in God or a deity is not atheism under all definitions and given that atheist has a pejorative use it would be unwise to label someone as an atheist if they do not identify as such. There are plenty of sources defining nontheism, both explicitly and through use. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Nontheism is not defined by the OED. Only non-theist is defined by the OED. In fact, the word nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007. It fails WP:OR. RS1900 12:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read what I said, RS. Dictionaries do not need to define a term for it to be notable per WP:NEO. ... There are plenty of sources defining nontheism, both explicitly and through use. The term nontheism meets WP:NEO as it has been well-documented, per the sources in its article. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Nick graves... very good and exhaustive argument.JJJ999 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for Nontheism - references are clearly provided in the article. If there is reason to dispute these, I suggest taking it up on Talk first. At worst, move to non-theistic, which apparentely is in the dictionary. Mdwh 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you are right. References are clearly provided in the article. However, can you find a single source where nontheism is not connected to atheism? No. That's why, we don't need seperate articles. RS1900 03:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for List of nontheists. Few of those listed seem to identify as non-theists, and this issue seems to be better covered by the other lists (although note that the consensus is that "Lists of people" are rather dubious generally, as we can't be sure whether a person should be classified as such, and it risks violating Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). Mdwh 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mdwh, the other lists do cover the vast majority of nontheists. However, this list fulfills a useful role by listing person who do not fit the criteria of the other lists, but who can clearly be identified as nontheists. I do not believe self-identification by the specific term "nontheist" is necessary for inclusion in the case of this list, since, unlike atheist, nontheist is not a potentially pejorative term, and is merely descriptive of someone holding a stance that can be documented by a reliable source. Nick Graves 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And, who set the criteria? Who decides which word is pejorative or not? Nontheist is not a potentially pejorative term because it is an unknown term. It is simply an obscure and ill-defined term. People simply don't use such terms and famous people who are categorized as a nontheist have never used such term. RS1900 04:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria are set by the editors of the article--what's your point? The word atheist is potentially pejorative due to the fact that it has been used as an insult meaning "immoral." This is documented by reliable sources in the Atheism article. Nontheist is not an unknown term. It's in the OED, as already pointed out numerous times. If you still think the word is ill-defined, I suppose you can take it up with the editors of that work. By Wikipedia's standards, however, the OED is a reliable source. Why do you insist that someone must use a term for themselves for it to be applicable? Protagoras was no less an agnostic for not having used the term for himself. His agnostic views are documented in his writings, and it is perfectly appropriate to call him an agnostic. The same is true in the case of calling people who say "I don't believe in God" nontheists. Nick Graves 01:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick, how can you say that atheist is potentially pejorative? In UK, France, other EU countries, China, and in many other countries, the views of atheists are respected. The term 'non-theist' is not used that much. And, a non-theist can believe in an impersonal God or non-theistic God. RS1900 13:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nontheism and Delete list. I echo VanTucky above, for pete's sake. --Evb-wiki 02:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evb-wiki, can you find a single source where nontheism is not connected to atheism? No. We don't need seperate articles. RS1900 03:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Try reading this academic article. And this article, which discusses Christianity and "practical nontheism," also the theme of two books reviewed here, suggesting that "taking leave of God is not the same as Godlessness." Atheism is a belief system, while nontheism is not necessarily a belief system. --Evb-wiki 03:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Atheism is not a belief system. As an atheist, I simply don't believe in God. And, I don't care whether you believe in 1 God, 10 Gods or don't believe in any God. Atheists do not believe in God. That's it. RS1900 04:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nice to know your POV on the matter RS, but you should leave it at the door when you enter the realm of editing Wikipedia. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aww. What about WP:Civil and WP:AGF? If you continue with this sort of tone, we cannot have a constructive dialog. Atheism is not a belief system. And, that's not my point of view. RS1900 15:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a reminder RS. As the discussions on the atheism article clearly show, as does the article in its current, NPOV form, the word atheism has several meanings, from nontheism to antitheism, and it has been used as a pejorative frequently, including in recent times. That the term atheist is synonymous with nontheist and not at all potentially pejorative is entirely your own POV. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the hopelessly open ended list. Artw 02:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Recently List of Christians was deleted. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians (2nd nomination). Unencyclopedic lists and articles must be deleted. RS1900 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Christians had serious problems that List of nontheists does not have. The membership on the List of Christians did not have sources to support each one, and the rules for membership were vague and went against the rules for Wikipedia lists because of that. In contrast, the List of nontheists has support for each entry and simple rules for membership in the list, as simple as the definition of theism. -- Lilwik 04:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference. On List of nontheists, people who have never identified themselves as a nontheist are also listed as a nontheist. And, please look at the definiton of nontheist. According to the list, the definition of nontheists is: "A nontheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God or deities." I tried to find a source where nontheist is defined like this. I couldn't find any source. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a non-theist is "A person who is not a theist." How do you define theism? A theist is "a person who believes in God or gods". Here God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Thus, a nontheist can believe in an impersonal God. On List of nontheists we have people who have clearly stated that they do not believe in any God - personal or impersonal. RS1900 04:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If "a nontheist can believe in an impersonal God," how can you argue that nontheism and atheism be covered in the same article? --Evb-wiki 04:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not agruing that nontheism and atheism should covered in the same article. Nontheism is not defined yet. However, non-theist is defined as someone who is not a theist. RS1900 05:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your explanation is not clear to me. You have nicely broken down the meaning of nontheist according to Oxford and it matches the meaning given by the list. Yet you say it does not match? If a nontheist is someone who is not a theist and a theist is someone who believes in God or gods, then through the simplest of logic we directly derive that a nontheist is someone who does not believe in God or gods. Of course we have people on the list who state they do not believe in God; that describes everyone on the list. What has being personal or impersonal got to do with that? Please do not take offense, I merely find your reasoning to be not clearly explained. -- Lilwik 05:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read what I wrote carefully. Theist is someone who believes in God or gods. Here theistic God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. In other word, theist is a person who believe in a God which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. A person can reject the concept of personal God (God which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent) and believe in an impersonal God. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as miracles and tend to assert that God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe. There are many people who believe in an impersonal God and reject the concept of divine intervention. On List of nontheists we have people who have clearly stated that they do not believe in any God - personal or impersonal. RS1900 05:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the definition of a personal god RS. Please read the appropriate article. Further, a theist (per your own definition) is not someone who believes in a personal god, but merely someone who believes in a deity. Therefore, a nontheist is someone who does not believe in a deity. Therefore, the list should contain people who do not believe in deities, as it does. Nontheists of a more specific nature, such as those identifying as belonging to major groups of nonthiesm such as atheism or agnosticism, are placed in the more precise list. Regardless of your entire argument, someone who does not believe in any god neither matches the most restrictive definition of an atheist, nor are they a theist. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A theist is someone who believes in a deity. But what kind of a deity? A deity which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. A personal who rejects the concept of theistic God is called deist. RS1900 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The type of deity is unimportant, RS; one who believes in a deity is a theist. However, I seem to be unable to understand what relevance your argument has to this discussion. Are you suggesting that the people listed are in fact deists? That would most certainly be original research. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a non-theist can believe in a non-theistic God. Many physicists, chemists, and other scientists believe in a creator but they don't believe in a personal God. They believe in an impersonal God. For example, Thomas Alva Edison didn't believe in the God of religions; however, he believed in "the Supreme intelligence that rules matter". I am not suggesting that people listed on List of nontheists are deists, they are atheist. A non-theists do not believe in a personal God and they may or may not believe in an impersonal God. If a person do not believe in a personal and impersonal God, he is an atheist. If a person believe in an impersonal God but reject the concept of a personal God, he is a deist. If a person believe in a personal God, and believe that the existance of an impersonal God is unknown, he is an agnostic deist. The list of nontheists is not required. RS1900 13:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Artw, how is the list hopelessly open-ended. The inclusion criteria are clearly defined. There is a finite supply of notable people whose nontheism can be reliably documented. Nick Graves 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --RucasHost 04:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article, delete list. V35322 05:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both per the Nick Graves. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article, no opinion on list. Dictionary inclusion is not a requirement, the term is attested and has a reliable definition distinct from atheist. Article is referenced, and I don't really see the problem. SamBC(talk) 09:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete list, keep article. The article has some good content and will continue to grow and develop. The list, like most other such belief lists, it's basically an indiscriminate collection that would better be served as a category if even such a thing were needed. Prominent or notable nontheists can be discussed in the article without the need for such a list (note: that is not a merge vote as such content should be in prose form in the article, not in a list form). violet/riga (t) 09:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Violetriga, the list criteria are clearly defined, so I do not see how the list is an indiscriminate collection of information. Categories do not perform the same function as lists, since they cannot contain references or substantiating quotes. Nick Graves 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, lists may include people in unrelated fields, whereas categories are preferably applied only to people whose notability is directly connected to the category's subject. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article for sure, but I have mixed feelings about the list. The reason the list exists is a very internal to Wikipedia, and can be hard for other people to understand. We don't want to list people as atheists, unless they either self-identify or explicitly and state they believe that God does not exist. However, if someone just says "I don't believe in God", he isn't allowed on the list of atheists, but he is allowed here. Essentially, we have "List of strong atheists and self-identifying atheists" and "List of weak atheists and self-identifying non-theists". In some sense, this is a very long-sought for compromise between editors of different POVs, I wouldn't throw it out the window, instead I wish it was more clear to the reader what is going on here. Many people would consider the statement "Personally, I don't believe in God at all" as atheist, while something like "I'm not sure, perhaps there is a god, no, I don't think so, I believer there is no God" seems to me much weaker, and the person just happened to use a strong atheism formulation. Anyway, my conclusion is then a weak keep for the list, because although I'm a bit uncomfortable with it, the list is a difficult compromise on a very sensitive topic: the definition of atheism. --Merzul 12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merzul, When someone says "I'm not sure, perhaps there is a god, no, I don't think so, I believer there is no God", he is a confused person. He may wake up the next day and say "I believe in God". However, when someone clearly says "I don't believe in God", he is an atheist. RS1900 02:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that second agnostic? Adam Cuerden talk 19:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In some cases, and in some cases its a synonym. Certainly some of the people on this list are strong atheists by any definition based on the information shown about them here & elsewhere. Weak conception.: list of people who have at one time or another said "I dont believe in a personal god"--that's not defined enough to be usable.DGG (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article, per Nick Graves and because the root of the term "non-theist" is defined by OED, which makes the slight variation "Nontheism" not WP:OR. Also, while the prose needs a lot of work, there is definite potential to expand. Also seems like there is only one editor (the nominator him/herself) vehemently for the deletion and their only points were well refuted by Graves in his original response. The list is weaker as the names are not self-identified as non-theists and many could object to "Nontheist" as soon as "Atheist." Adam McCormick 00:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, I do see a handful of "delete" recommendations above. And more for just the list. --Evb-wiki 00:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, how do you define the term 'atheist'? An atheist is a person who do not believe in the existance of God. So, why do we have people who have clearly said "I don't believe in God" listed on List of nontheists? It simply doesn't make any sense. RS1900 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it is because the class of nontheists is broader than the class of atheists. All atheists are nontheists, but not all notheists are atheists. That might explain it. --Evb-wiki 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we don't need a kind of super-list, do we? The definition of the term 'atheist' is quite strainghtforward. An atheist is a person who do not believe in the existance of God. Thus, when someone says "I don't believe in God", he is an atheist. RS1900 03:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with atheism is that not everyone shares your POV on what atheism means. Another common usage of the word has atheist mean a person who believes that gods don't exist. In that case, simply saying, "I don't believe in God," would not necessarily make you an atheist. Nontheism does not suffer from that difficulty. -- Lilwik 04:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the OED, the definition of atheist is: atheist n a person who does not believe in God. So, that not my POV. Atheism is not a belief system. And, one more thing: Can you find a single who says, "I don't believe in God and I think God exist"? No. Only a foolish individual will say that. A person who says, "I don't believe in God" think that there is no God or there is almost certainly no God. RS1900 13:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment is not a "vehement" statement. I see only two votes for delete with reasoning beyond "per nom" and only one person responding to the many "Keep" arguments. Furthermore, one of those "Delete" comments concerned the text of the article rather than its subject. Adam McCormick 00:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: RS1900 is to be commended for the rigor of his thinking.
- If it were up to me, self-described "agnostics" would be classified as "atheists" since, if they can't decide whether there is a God/god, they cannot be said to believe in one; and a person who does not believe in a God/god is an atheist.
- Unfortunately, as with other belief or non-belief systems, the universe of atheism has become splintered, partly due to bigots who have freighted a simple concept with pejorative baggage.
- A fairly neutral (probably because less known) term is "nontheism," which may perhaps serve as an umbrella term — not only for "atheism" and "agnosticism" but also for belief systems, many of them Asian, that have not thought even to make use of the concept of divinity.
- So I shall stick — happily — with "nontheism."
- The initial poster was RS1900 — who has indeed been doing valiant combat with the forces of godless nontheism. Nihil novi 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- please see my comment below; i've argued enough on the pointlessness of the list in the list itself, but i've decided not to opt for the deletion of the article due to its history. Michaelkulov 00:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be worth striking/editing your original comment to help the closing admin get an overview of views. SamBC(talk) 00:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, doing that now. Michaelkulov 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy KEEP Nontheism. This is akin to deleting and redirecting Protestantism to Christianity because the former is one of the forms of the latter. The term nontheism/nontheist has been around since at least the 1800s according to OED. The term has obvious differences with the various forms of atheism, which all need to be explained thoroughly. It makes no sense to redirect one name to another, much broader name, when both names have their own varied histories. Abstain for List of nontheists. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-27 15:55Z
- Pretty good point with the article. You could probably toss the list and keep the article. Michaelkulov 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we have articles like Nonbelieve, Disbelieve, and Non-religion? No. Do we have lists like List of nonbelievers, List of disbelievers and List of non-religious people? No. We simply don't have such articles and lists because we don't need them. Brian, you said "the term (nontheism) has obvious differences with the various forms of atheism." Brian, what are those differences? And, there is an article called 'Deism'. Someone should clearly state how nontheism is different from atheism and deism. If somebody can clearly state those differences, then the article 'Nontheism' should not be deleted. As far as List of nontheists is concerned, it should be deleted. How do you define the term 'atheist'? According to the OED, following is the definition of 'atheist':
- atheist n a person who does not believe in God.
On List of nontheists, we have people who have clearly stated that they do not believe in God. They should be on List of atheists. And, I also believe that we should divide the List of atheists into two sections. There are atheists who actively promote atheism and there are atheists who don't promote atheism. There is a difference. One section should be for those who promote atheism (e.g. Richard Dawkins) and the other section should be for those who do not promote atheism and keep their atheism private (e.g. Linus Pauling). RS1900 02:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article, Agnostic on the list. I reject the argument that if something isn't in the dictionary it is WP:OR or WP:NEO, as there are lots of reliable sources other than dictionaries. Nontheism is covered by many, such as the book "Godless for God's Sake: Nontheism in Contemporary Quakerism". As for the list, I personally think it's pointless and unmaintainable, (i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Since Nick Graves had solid arguments about the list and I don't, I'll refrain from further comment. Billgordon1099 03:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation it seems that some criticism is of the implementation of the list, not of its existence. Based on sources and arguments given here, it would seem that atheists are a subset of nontheists (or non-theists, I don't think that the hyphen is important). Nontheists reject theism, where theism is the idea of a personal and active god. Therefore deists are a subset of nontheists, as are atheists, as are a number of other groups and categories and an arguably infinite number of personal beliefs that people have. If a person has professed beliefs that mark them as nontheists, then it's reasonable to include them. Editorial judgement may lead to consensus that if a person belongs to a more specific group that already has a list of its own (such as atheists, I believe), then it is better to include that person on the other list, and link to all such other lists. These comments aren't entirely relevant to the article, except where they may indicate ways in which the article ought to be refocussed. If the list were to meet the description I give, or there was a resolution to refactor it as such, then I would strongly and firmly suggest keeping the list as well as the article. SamBC(talk) 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, what you describe is exactly what the list was until a few days ago: See this version. The list prior to this AfD discussion included links to lists of other people whose stances, according to one definition of the word, qualify as nontheistic. Mandsford above objected to the unsupported comments made in that section of the list, so I deleted it until I could supply the appropriate sources to support that section.
- I must say, I'm mystified by the large number of people recommending keeping the Nontheism article, but recommending deleting the list, or pointedly abstaining from making a recommendation concerning the list. Perhaps it is because of a residual distaste for the numerous lists of people by belief that fail to maintain clear or restrictive enough inclusion criteria, or that fail to provide sources to back up their content. Neither of these flaws are present in this list. As far as such lists go, List of nontheists is actually a stellar example of maintainability and thorough sourcing, as are its sister lists List of atheists and List of agnostics (unfortunately, I cannot say the same for List of humanists, though I intend to do what I can to fix that soon).
- I suspect that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, candidly cited by Billgordon, has more to do with why people are recommending deletion of the list than anything else. I have yet to see what I would consider to be a well-supported, policy-citing reason for deletion of the list. There have been some who have recommended deletion without saying why. RS's assertion of WP:V violation doesn't stand up to scrutiny, nor does any objection citing WP:OR, as all the content is backed up by reliable sources. The fact is that the list has been well-maintained. I recall reading an argument that lists should not be defined by a negative, and I agree that this is generally true (eg. we wouldn't want a list of all celebrities who have not appeared on SNL--such a list would be massive, and the lists of SNL hosts and musical guests renders the list pointless). However, while List of nontheists appears on the face of it to be a list defined by a negative, what it documents in practice is people who have said they do not believe in God or gods. That's a positive action made by a small minority of people, and is culturally significant in a world where the vast majority of people do believe in God.
- It has been said that the list is pointless. I suppose if someone is not interested in whether someone does or does not believe in deities, then the list is pointless to them. I'm personally not interested in who is or isn't a vegan. But there are Wikipedia readers who are interested in vegans, and those who are interested in nontheists. A list of nontheists would be of interest to readers who are also nontheists, or those interested in religion, philosophy, or the sociology of belief. It doesn't have to interest everyone to have a point, or to be kept in the encyclopedia.
- To help understand why this list does have a point, I should say something regarding the reason the nontheist list was started in the first place. About a year ago, the List of atheists was in a sorry state, with virtually no sourcing, and little regard for inclusion criteria. There were people listed whose only profession of "atheism" had been some disparaging comment about the church, or about the Bible. Numerous celebrities , such as Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, or Angelina Jolie (gee, which of these is not like the other? :-) would be repeatedly added by various editors, with no care taken to research what their (ir)religious beliefs actually were, or using unreliable and highly speculative sources. Since that time, several other editors and I have tried to turn the list around into something manageable, well-sourced, and free of potential WP:BLP violations. The occasional unsourced "drive-by" additions are still made, but they're usually reverted quickly by one of the editors (I must commend Ian Rose in particular, who has tirelessly and uncompromisingly kept up this valuable maintenance activity).
- A speed bump was encountered, however, when some editors (including RS) wished to include persons who had clearly stated that they did not believe in a God, but had not been identified as an atheist by themselves or a reliable source. RS has maintained that all people who don't believe in God are atheists. And I agree that they are atheists by one definition of the word. However, I have maintained that such persons should not be included, primarily becase (1) many people consider an atheist only to be someone who outright denies the existence of God, and (2) atheist has a history of being used in a pejorative sense, making it unacceptable (primarily for WP:BLP reasons) for editors here to identify someone as an atheist without citing a reliable source that does so.
- A compromise was found by SwitChar in the form of List of nontheists, where such people could be listed without making a POV ruling in favor of a particular definition of atheist, and without potentially violating WP:BLP. RS has objected to this, and suggested a merger of the two lists at one point, but his position has not gained consensus support among editors of the lists. Since its creation, List of nontheists has served as a valuable repository for listing persons whose position on the existence of God cannot be definitively classified as atheistic or agnostic, but which can be classified as nontheistic. Several of the people listed there have been moved to the other lists when sources were found documenting more specific positions, so the List of nontheists has helped with the development of the other lists. So no, it's not a pointless list. It serves a purpose, and has done so admirably. Nick Graves 17:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given those points of history, and reasoned arguments, I definitely support keeping the list, provided that the list returns to the state I described (and it sounds like it will). SamBC(talk) 17:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick, let me give you an example: Let say X do not believe in God. X doesn't consider himself an atheist because of your reasons. He also considers nontheism to be a synonym for atheism. By this logic, he will not consider himself a nontheist because he considers nontheism to be just another term for atheism! If persons who had clearly stated that they did not believe in a God cannot be included on List of atheists or List of agnostics, then they should not be included on any lists. Their beliefs (or lack of it) are disputed. I think we need a seperate list for people whose beliefs are disputed. Do we have any such list? RS1900 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This does raise the interesting point of WP:BLP concerns. It's worth considering caution in the cases of living people. It's also true that using a statement of "I don't believe in a personal god" to infer "I am a nontheist" may be seen as synthesis. I maintain that there's nothing improper with the existence of the list, but these concerns must be clearly addressed. For example, the synthesis issue may be alleviated if the text of the page makes it clear that the use of "nontheist" in the title is a sort of shorthand, and that people included on the list may have simply made a statement that clearly implies nontheism (with a description of what sort of statement that may be). SamBC(talk) 06:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The word 'nontheist' is clearly defined for the list and it's not an extraordinary definition. There is no original research in using a word to mean its definition. If people have claimed to not believe in God then they have claimed to be nontheists. That's not inference, that is just the definition of the word nontheist. It's not original research to rephrase a source in different words. And since the people in the list are self-described in that way, there shouldn't be a BLP concern either, so long as we are absolutely certain that they really did say what our source says they said, and they said it publicly so that it is common knowledge. Obviously we don't want to list anyone here who doesn't want to be thought of as a nontheist, but is surely not true for people who publicly claim to not believe in God. (It's not so surely true for atheism, unfortunately.)-- Lilwik 07:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The advantage of nontheist over atheist, as RS wants, is that nontheist is a strictly defined word, explicit in its meaning, which has never been pejorative. It does not encounter the same WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues as the list of atheists would if we were to include people such as Andy Partridge. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Both Nontheism and List of nontheists should not be deleted. If a guy says,'I don't believe in God', he may or may not be an atheist. An Agnostic can also say 'Listen guys, I don't believe in God'. For example, here is the view of American economist Milton Friedman , the winner of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel in 1976.
“I am an agnostic. I do not ‘believe in’ God, but I am not an atheist, because I believe the statement, ‘There is a god’ does not admit of being either confirmed or rejected.[32]
Here, Dr. Freidman has clearly said "I do not ‘believe in’ God" and also explained why he is not an atheist and why he considered himself an agnostic. The quote from Milton Friedman illustrates precisely why we cannot categorize someone as an atheist just because they do not believe in a deity. It is not enough for someone to simply say they don't believe in God in order to identify them as an atheist, since they might hold a position similar to that of Friedman's. Please read the argument between Nick Graves and me on the talk page of List of nontheists before making any comment here. Before even I was confused. Merzul was also confused. Nick Graves clearly explained why we need the List of nontheists. Please see the talk page of List of nontheists. Jai Raj K 08:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that Jai Raj K is a sockpuppet of RS1900. I am still gathering my evidence, but I thought that should be noted here. In any case, Jai Raj K is a very new account with few other edits unreleated to this AfD. Nick Graves 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick Graves, you are a lier and a blackmailer. If Jai Raj K and I were the same person why would I ever vote 'Keep'? I am not Jai Raj K and I have no relations with him. Both the article Nontheism and List of nontheists should be deleted. RS1900 06:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article, Delete list. I grok the distinction being made between non-theist and a-theist. The list is just inviting trouble. JJL 14:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you specify what trouble you think it is inviting? Nick Graves 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that this term does not seem to be often used by the people to whom it is applied--the examples cited in the list don't seem to have been of people quoted as saying "I am a nontheist" and the lack of dictionary references to the term makes me doubt there'll be much by way of secondary sources--putting people on the list could be OR. Note, the nontheism article says "(nontheism) can be applied to..." which sounds weasally to me: It's not clear to me that the statement "If X is an athesist, then X is a nontheist" is true by definition. Putting people on this list will therefore be an iffy proposition. The second paragraph of nontheism does make a stronger statement that indeed all atheists are nontheists whether they like that label or not, but I don't yet believe that people will agree with that. My experience has been that people like to choose their labels very precisely in this matter (hence the profusion of labels that those pressing for nontheism are trying to unite--nontheism appears to be the "new atheism"). So, I see membership on this list being a contentious issue as someone argues for example that X is only an ignostic and not a nontheist. JJL 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both as per Nick Graves; it is also utterly ridiculous to claim an article on a term is OR when Google finds 72,900 hits for said term. The OED is useful, yes, but we can hardly limit ourselves to its entry; the term "transgender" for example did also take years to make it into it, and yet it existed, and thousands of people identified as such. Do however check the list as to whether those people did indeed call themselfes "nontheist" or where they have been called that in publications (in the later case, I want to know who called them that, too). Lists are always problematic in that regard, but if properly checked, they are most useful, too. -- John Smythe 15:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of a list like this, we wouldn't want to list people just because publications call them nontheists, no matter what publication says it. WP:BLP says that we must be very careful to not hurt the living people that we talk about, so we must only call people nontheists if they call themselves that publicly. (Of course, they don't have to use the actual word. Nontheist is just shorthand for a person who doesn't believe in God. We could call the list List of people who don't believe in God, but there's no need for something so long and awkward when we have the perfectly good word nontheist which is in the dictionary.) -- Lilwik 20:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both as per Nick Graves; The beliefs of Bishop Spong and his school of thought are influential and have no other home central on Wikipedia.
-- Consanescerion 20:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC) — Consanescerion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
- Keep both, The problem is that some people don't neatly fit in categories like "atheist," "agnostic," or things like that, so a more general category is necessary. Currently the terms "nontheist" and "nontheism" get a combined hit total on Google of 130,000 hits[33], so people are using those terms to describe things. The "non-" prefix leads to a rather obvious definition, so I can understand why that, and many other "non-" words, are left out of many dictionaries. Also, the terms "non-theist" and "non-theistic" are both in the 2007 Oxford English Dictionary.[34] And for those who argue that "nontheist = atheist" that's just not true. Theism includes a belief in a personal god, so deists are not theists, but since they do believe in a god, deists are clearly not atheists either. Simply put, both nominated articles are for a larger, more general group that is not interchangeable with any of its subgroups, thus I believe that keeping them is necessary. -- HiEv 05:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for the article and Ambivalent about the list.
The word nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007. IRRELEVANTThere are no reliable sources which clearly define nontheism. NOT TRUEThe definition of nontheists in the List of nontheists is incorrect NOT TRUEThis is a definition of atheist. It is "a definition", but not "the definition" (read the article).Many people consider nontheism to be just another term for atheism. The unpublished opinions of "many people" do not constitute a WP:RS, are not WP:V, and are irrelevant to a deletion discussion. If you have verifiable, sourced information stating that "many people" consider "nontheism" and "atheism" to be synonymous, then it should be added the article to provide balance. But since there are clearly reliable sources that make a distinction between the two terms, the opinion that they are the same, even if verifiable, is not valid grounds for deletion of the entire article.To call someone a nontheist can be problematic. They may them self reject such label. POSSIBLY (see my comment below)
- To the people recommending deletion: Did you actually read any of the sources referenced in the article? Nontheism is clearly notable as a concept distinct from Atheism in actual use. The original nomination noted that "nontheism" was not mentioned in any dictionaries prior to 2007. What? Is Wikipedia a dictionary? Is a dictionary entry really a prerequisite for an encyclopedia article? If so, someone should get busy deleting the thousands of articles that don't have a corresponding entry in a pre-2007 dictionary. Anyway, the fact theat "non-theism" and "non-theist" are both in the 2007 edition of the dictionary (OED) renders that point moot with regard to the article.
- I will concede that the "the list" is a bit contentious because few, if any, of the people on it would (have) consider(ed) themselves "nontheists", even though their verifiable statements regarding their (lack of) belief would fit the definition. However, simply because a particular term is relatively new does not prevent it from being retroactively applied to those who fit the definition. For example, "homosexual" (used as an adjective) was not widely used (and never printed) before 1869, yet is often used to describe same-sex relations that took place during the Greco-Roman era, despite the fact that no one in ancient Greece or Rome would have self-described his or her same-sex behavior as "homosexual" (the term didn't exist!). Another, more recent example: the term "African American" seems to be the preferred scholarly term for Americans of sub-Saharan African descent (generally the descendants of slaves). Despite the relatively recent origins of this term, it is nonetheless now used to describe historical figures who would have been much more likely to consider themselves "negros", "colored", or "black" (depending on the time period/location). In addition, the term "African American" is clearly not used to describe all Americans of African descent, such as white immigrants from South Africa (is Dave Matthews African American?), those from northern Africa (who would likely be called Arab American), and recent African immigrants (from Somalia, Ethiopia, etc.) regardless of skin color. Although "African American" in its strictest etymological sense should include all Americans of African descent, its actual usage is much more nuanced.
- Similarly, "nontheism", in its strictest etymological sense might appear to be synonymous with "atheism", but anyone who takes the time to investigate and read the article and sources should realize that the terms are distinct (and both notable) in actual usage. Personal opinion as to whether nontheism "deserves" to be distinct from atheism is irrelevant POV. The original nomination for deletion is full of self-contradictory statements that don't reflect Wikipedia policy. Again, I am confused by the bizarre assertion that non-inclusion in a "pre-2007" dictionary is a valid criteria for claiming that a term is WP:OR and not verifiable. It seems that, despite the mention of the terms "nontheism" and "nontheist" (as distinct from atheism) in several reliable secondary sources and the latest edition of the world's preeminent English dictionary, we are being encouraged to delete an article because the nominating editor doesn't like the term.
- RS1900, you should have actually read WP:OR and WP:V (or at least made sure that you understood them)before asserting that the arbitrary threshold for an article's inclusion in Wikipedia is mention in a notable pre-2007 dictionary. Your nomination makes no sense and your reasoning is flawed. The article talk page would have been an appropriate place to share yout concerns. Recommending deletion based on your personal opinion is a bit rash. Please retract your nomination for deletion immediately. Thanks — DIEGO talk 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.Addendum to my comments above (upon a closer reading of the arguments)
- RS1900, why do you continually repeat "Nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007" as an argument for deletion (and an assertion or WP:OR(?)) when you yourself acknowledged that both terms are included in the current OED? What does 2007 have to do with it? I'm sure you are aware that many recent terms (neologisms) are not yet included in the dictionary, but are still notable. Also, new terms have to be well-documented in notable print sources before dictionary editors would ever consider inclusion (i.e., there is a long delay between a term's initial use and its eventual inclusion in a dictionary). Therefore, the fact that both terms are included in the current OED is a strong indication that their use was validated in print sources prior to 2007 (since 2007 seems to be an important watershed year for you in determining the Wikipedia-worthiness of an article). How could you possibly think that including these terms is WP:OR when they are used in secondary sources and the Oxford English Dictionary (past editions are irrelevant)? Yet you still wrote "Nontheism is not defined yet" after admitting that "non-theism" is listed in the current OED. How does this make sense? What, exactly, is your argument for deletion? By the way, the hyphenation simply reflects a typical variation between British and American spelling that dictionaries rarely note explicitly. Many hyphenated words/terms in the OED would not be hyphenated by a typical American writer, and hyphenation differences in compound words are not an indication that the two terms are separate (any more than "realize" and "realise" can be considered "different words"). A simple redirect could fix this "problem" unless you seriously believe that a definition of "non-theism" does not apply to "nontheism". Is that what you are saying?
- Also, regarding: "can you find a single source where Nontheism is not connected to atheism?" Nobody is denying that the two terms are connected; this is not a rational argument. And many of the sources listed (and a quick academic database search will reveal even more) make a distinction between the two terms. As long as they are distinct, it is irrelevant that they are "always" connected. To paraphrase comments above, Protestantism is always connected to Christianity, and the Sun is always connected to the solar system, yet no one would ever suggest (hopefully) that Protestantism should be deleted because it is "just another form of Christianity" and "there is already an article for Christianity" or that Sun should be merged with Solar system becasue the definition of one is inseparable from the other.
- DGG, your recommendation for deletion seems to contradict your stated "inclusionist" self-identification. The article could possibly be improved, but does not violate policy, so why delete?
- The fact that people here are debating the subtle and complex differences between theism vs. deism, agnosticism, nontheism, and atheism, etc. (and whether all people who are X are also Y, but not necessarily Z, etc.) is a good indication that the article should not be deleted. It is a sourced article that could actually be helpful to people trying to understand the differences between X,Y, and Z as systems of belief (or definitions of non-belief) that may appear synonymous. Anyone is welcome to try to improve the article (no article is perfect), but deleting it is not appropriate. It has been thoroughly establishged that (a) Nontheism is distinct from, yet connected to atheism,(b)the term has been documented in reliable sources, and (c) it is even in the dictionary (which really shouldn't matter at all). — DIEGO talk 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.