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. Merge can, of course, be discussed at Talk:Zoey 101, but there isn't a consensus to do so from here. Note that the list is large enough (60 k) that Wikipedia:Article size recommends keeping it separate. WilyD 07:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zoey 101 characters[edit]

List of Zoey 101 characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This list seems to be unreferenced and I cannot find any references that are reliable enough to use when I was doing my normal random article editing. Should such an article exist on Wikipedia? I think it may constitute original research or be better suited to a fan-based wiki. For example: Zoey 101 Wiki Junjunone (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lists of characters for notable television shows have long been approved by the Wikipedia community in lieu of multiple articles on not-individually-notable characters. Anything here can be sourced to primary sources or trimmed, such that the article can be improved through the regular editing process. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens. Too many people don't understand that primary sources are sources. Trimming it down and otherwise improving it is a matter for normal editing; there is no AFD concern here. postdlf (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Zoey 101. Though stand-alone lists of characters are permitted, nowhere are they described as automatically notable. The only actual community practices regarding list notability are described at WP:LISTN which states that "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", and obviously that is not the case for Zoey 101 characters. Moreover, WP:AVOIDSPLIT states that "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would not meet the general notability criterion" (which is the case) and "If a concept can be cleanly trimmed or removed, or can be merged elsewhere on the wiki, these steps should be undertaken first before some new article is created". Per WP:WAF#Summary style approach ("just because the spinout article is given more space to grow does not mean that excessive plot summaries or fictional character biographies are appropriate"), the list of Zoey 101 characters, with its excessive average of 5kb of plot dump per character, can obviously be trimmed down to an acceptable size so that it can perfectly be merged back into the main article, since the topic in itself is not notable anyway.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to main article. Folken de Fanel is correct: not every TV series gets a list of characters. Articles aren't automatically notable, and aren't entitled to exist as a matter of right. For lesser known series with characters that don't really attract much commentary, the policy is to cover them at the main article. Again, we refer to the WP:GNG and WP:LISTN, which reminds us that lists of this nature still need significant coverage in third party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LISTN, by its own terms, does not apply to all lists. It is one way of analyzing lists, but not the only way. At any rate, merging is fine in my opinion as a normal editing decision. It does look to my eyes like this could be substantially trimmed, and then if size concerns allow, merged back into the main article. But as I said above (and as WP:ATD makes clear), that's not an AFD issue. postdlf (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's normal to have this for any significant show; the alternative is to have individual articles, which should be reserved for the most important. Trying to merge this all to the main article produces either an unreadable article, or the gradual loss of significant content. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not normal to have "excessive plot summaries or fictional character biographies", which is what this list is. And it is perfectly acceptable to trim it to a more reasonable size so that it can merged back into the main article. As it stand, the list is not notable per WP:LISTN.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 ICC World Twenty20 warm-up matches[edit]

2012 ICC World Twenty20 warm-up matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This can be adequately covered in the main article on the tounament, with this article basically duplicating a section which already exists. Besides which, these are just warm-up matches, with no official cricketing status. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Even though these matches have no official cricketing status, they do not fail WP:GNG because they are covered in some reliable sources. Duplicating a section of an article (not the whole article) into a new article, called splitting, is not a problem unless it is made as a POV fork, which is not the case here. jfd34 (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep International matches at this level clearly meet WP:GNG and help chop-down an already lenghty main article, per WP:SIZE. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 08:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Moved page: 2012 ICC World Twenty20 (Warm-up matches) → 2012 ICC World Twenty20 warm-up matches. jfd34 (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wholly covered in main tournament article, does not need to be duplicated in a seperate article. extra999 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Main article is not too long (WP:SIZESPLIT). Meets WP:A10 deletion criteria. --SocietyBox (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it will be by the end of the tournament. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 08:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as duplication of an existing topic, and warm-up matches have no official standing. The parent article is not long enough to justify a spin-out and I doubt if a split will be called for even by the time the tournament finishes. Reyk _YO! 00:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG, notability is not determined by anything like "official status" but by the topic's coverage in reliable sources. jfd34 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely a duplication of content in the parent article, without any justification for a split. Passing the GNG does not mean you can repeatedly clone the same content all over the place. That's if indeed it passes the GNG. Which is a shaky assertion at best when the entire content is just statistics copied and pasted from a sporting results website. Reyk _YO! 04:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Matches are notable only in the context of building up to the tournament itself. --Dweller (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - These matches are not notable independently of the tournament. The match reports are already included in the main article and in a hidden box, which negates their effect on WP:SIZE. – PeeJay 07:36, 19 September 2012 (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 all. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volume One (Volume magazine album)[edit]

Volume One (Volume magazine album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

There was a "magazine" called Volume where each "issue" took the form of a compilation CD with tracks on it. Somebody turned nearly each of the issues (25 of 27) into it's own article. Each of the 25 issue-articles consists of only of a statement that it is an issue of that magazine, a year of release, and a track listing, and occasionally something taken from the CD itself (e.g. "Track 1 was performed by xxx"), zero other text, and zero references. The two minor exceptions to this are noted. Each has no indication of wp:notability as either an "issue" of the magazine or an album. The first of the 25 articles was AFD'd and reviewed with the idea (noted there) that it is probably applicable to the other 24, with the idea that the other 24 would get AFD nominated if the finding was "delete". The input there suggesting deletion (or merge) was unanimous; the finding was "delete" and it was deleted. The discussion and results are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volume Seventeen This is a nomination of all of the remaining articles listed at Volume that have articles. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I am also nominating the following 23 related pages (all of the issues/CD's listed at the Volume magazine article that have articles) for the same reasons:

Volume Two (Volume magazine album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Volume Three (Volume magazine album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Volume Four (Volume magazine album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Volume Five (Volume magazine album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Volume Six (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Volume Seven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trance Europe Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Has a few sentences of other text content)

Volume Eight (Volume magazine album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Volume Nine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trance Europe Express 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Volume Ten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trance Europe Express 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Volume Twelve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trance Atlantic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Volume Thirteen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Has 1 reference, a review (off-line)

Wasted: The Best of Volume, Part I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sharks Patrol These Waters: The Best of Volume, Part II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trance Europe Express 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trance Atlantic 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Volume Fifteen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TEXtures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Volume Sixteen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trance Europe Express 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete all 23 articles per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Qworty (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assume you mean all 24 articles? Feel free to delete this post if you edit. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As nominator, per comments in nomination. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all with Volume (magazine). The individual editions are not notable but the series is, and the track listings are useful information which can be added into it. (Note I have just expanded and added references to the main article). Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment / offer If specific direction were to be decided / given here, I would be happy to transfer whatever is decided to the Volume magazine article. Including deciding which of the following would go over: Track listing, Info box (with or without cover image), any text not covered by the listing. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC) FYI within a couple days I'll be off wiki for over a week. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - There is no information from reliable, secondary sources on these articles that justifies merging into Volume (magazine). Neelix (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - Like it was stated in the AFD for the single issue/album that has been deleted already, not only is there no indication that any of these individual articles are notable at all, the actual parent magazine itself is arguable not notable itself. None of these individual articles have any sources, nor are there any to be found, so merging information from here would probably not be that great of an idea, as it would just be merging unsourced information to another article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per the above. The topics can be covered in Volume (magazine), which itself is not cited that much in Wikipedia.[45] There's nothing to merge. (The AfD test case was a good idea before making this bulk nom). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single Tear (Tyler James song)[edit]

Single Tear (Tyler James song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article about a song that does not seem notable and has not been released yet. Falls in the domain of WP:CRYSTAL, or at least WP:TOOSOON. Existing sourcing is primary and tertiary, or not reliable. BenTels (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON, at best it could be redirected to Tyler James. Sailodge (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is pure WP:SPAM that should be immediately deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. Qworty (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2012 (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. — Scientizzle 21:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Malkawi[edit]

Fadi Malkawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Promotional article on a person of questionable notability - definite COI at present. Google news search on Fadi Malkawi shows zero results. Standard search on same shows many primary sources and social media, but little significant coverage from indep endent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I had no problem finding refs. 1, 2, and 3, just on GNews. GregJackP Boomer! 15:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The refs found are on chess tournaments, not on this chess player particularly. This chess player has not had major success in major tournaments, and he has not reached a notable ranking or gained notable chess title like Grandmaster. SyG (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With no significant coverage, there's nothing available to use to write an article. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A Fadi Malkawi biography topic does not meet WP:GNG. Chess play of Fadi Malkawi may meet WP:GNG from the news articles cited above and others available. However, Widipedia doesn't normally have activity coverage of such a topic unless it is a WP:SPINOUT article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Audit Project 3[edit]

National Audit Project 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article about a Britisch study into the use of central neuraxial blockading. No indication of notability or importance. Current contents is a primarily sourced summary of the study. No reliable sources evident on Google/GNews (other than the British Journal of Anaesthesia, but I think that's a primary source in this case). Note that I could live with a merger to an appropriate article, but I cannot determine which that would be. BenTels (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, add nominal information to Royal College of Anaesthetists. There are other NAPs (NAP4 was about difficult airway management, and NAP5 will place emphasis on anaesthesia awareness). JFW | T@lk 23:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough for a stand alone article. SalHamton (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2012 (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 all speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Queen World[edit]

Miss Queen World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

Miss Queen World 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss Queen World 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss Queen World 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Miss Queen World editions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss Queen World Special Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Miss Queen World titleholders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

These articles were brought to my attention by WilliamJE (talk · contribs), who had identified them as a blatant hoax, and tagged them first for speedy ... and then when that was challenged by the creating editor, he PRODded them.

He then asked me for advice, and my response (see discussion on my talk, permalink) was that while they may be hoaxes, they are not blatant hoaxes.

I found some hits on a web search, though none on Google News, and nothing that looks like a reliable source.

On that basis, it seems to me that although "Miss Queen World" may not be a hoax, it is non-notable. As far as I can see, it fails WP:GNG by not having any significant coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Little or no coverage from reliable sources as per BrownHairedGirl....William 14:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the associated pages per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Qworty (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. The first of these articles has been speedy-deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs), who has also ((Spamblock))ed the editor who created them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note The following are  Confirmed as each other:

• Miss Beauty Internet Universe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Miss Queen World (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All articles created by the former should be considered for deletion as well. --MuZemike 06:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is, this AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Beauty Internet Universe are directly related to each other. --MuZemike 06:07, 16 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Yanovska[edit]

Inna Yanovska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I do not think this chess player is notable. She does not have the Grandmaster title, and not even the Woman Grandmaster title. She has not won the national title in her country. She participated in the Chess Olympiad, but so do thousands of chess players every year. SyG (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC) SyG (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An easy keep for representing Ukraine in the Women's 40th Chess Olympiad. I think this alone is enough, but there are a few more things to keep in mind. Ukraine is a strong country in chess, including women's chess. I have no idea why Syg asserts that Yanovska doesn't have the WGM title. It's irrelevant anyway, as the International Master title is harder to achieve than the Woman Grandmaster title (unless you are a man of course), and far fewer women are IMs than WGMs. Syg knows this very well, so his nomination argument is deliberately disingenuous. Also I think that Yanovska probably does have the WGM title anyway, as my guess is that she recently changed her name either from or to Inna Gaponenko. Gaponenko has had the WGM title since 1995 and the harder to achieve IM title since 2002, and is currently ranked 62nd in the world among active female players. I also forgot to mention that this page is helpful to Build The Web, as it is linked from 40th Chess Olympiad since she is a member of a medal winning team. Quale (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Inna Yanovska is not listed by FIDE but Inna Gaponenko is. Their pictures look like they are the same person. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looking at the notability guidelines for people and sport, simpling playing in the Chess Olympiad would probably be enough to confer notability, but she did more than that, she won the bronze medal. PatGallacher (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You are right, this does appear to be the same person as Inna Gaponenko, see [46]. I suspect she got married very recently. So do we reduce it this to a redir and see which she regards as her primary name over the next few months? PatGallacher (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Good catch. In fact Inna Yanovska-Gaponenko has nine Chess Olympiad appearances for Ukraine, every contest from 1994 through 2012 except for 2000. She was a member of the Ukraine women's team that won bronze in 2008 and 2012 and gold in 2006. She also won individual gold for fourth board in 2010. http://www.olimpbase.org/playersw/hp1flbdo.html Quale (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the identification of the name change, with the titles and Olympiad results. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:30, 16 September 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tao Yang (Wuxi)[edit]

Tao Yang (Wuxi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Also see, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Computational Cognition (2nd nomination). —Ruud 11:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's a long list of books in the article. With one exception, they're either self published (Yang's Scientific Press) or published by Nova Publishers, not directly a major publisher either. No evidence that any of these books has drawn much attention or made any significant impact. Does not meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep' Not a major researcher, but certainly some contribution to the field. Given the vast number of WP articles devoted to one-game footballers and utterly un-notable rappers, if we're going to purge our vanity pages, I wouldn't be looking at this one for starters.Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument is fallacious: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Qworty (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails all of the requirements of WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This case is a bit confusing because there's a different more famous computer scientist named Tao Yang at UCSB. But his book Impulsive control theory (published by a major academic publisher, Springer) has 329 citations in Google scholar, and his Impulsive systems and control: theory and applications (despite the unimpressive publisher) has 176. To me that seems enough to make a case for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked a few of the citations in Google Scholar and while I indeed found several legitimate citations the number might be inflated somewhat. I found some articles that did not reference the book at all and quite a few self-citations (including those from the International Journal of Computational Cognition) or e.g. citations from articles published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. Something does not smell quite right about this whole situation—not least of the suspicious language that used to be present on Unicogse. —Ruud 00:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The titles of his publications listed in the article here do look very fringy, I have to admit. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The fringy nature of his work, the past history of citation spamming of the Chaos Solitons & Fractals crowd, and the apparent walled garden of related articles here (many of which are now also up for deletion) means that I think we need stronger evidence than citation counts in this case, and I don't know where that evidence is. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2012 (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 redirect to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Brunner (CEO)[edit]

John Brunner (CEO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable with only local souces. He ran in a primary for a minor political position and dint event win. There are hordes of such "politicians" in the world which doesnt indicate his notability. Further, the aticle deals with his biz primarily and thats les notable. Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012 as in WP:POLITICIAN. AllyD (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the race mentioned above as an unelected political candidate. Consensus seems clear on such cases, although my own personal preference differs. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per WP:POLITICIAN. There do not seem to be any other sources of notability sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a CEO and company (fails as a politician since he isn't one). I recognize that this is a minor person but I think he passes. By the WP:Politician criteria, he fails but he is NOT a politician any more than Jimbo Wales' article fails under WP:Politician. He passes under the WP:N and he was a CEO of a fairly large company. It is true that there is no strict criteria for CEO's (perhaps there should be a size criteria) unlike WP having a strict criteria for actors and porn stars. This shows a flaw in WP where movies and porn is more important and read more than business. I will study the criteria and get back, though. In the mean time, keep is preferred. Auchansa (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up and Brunner's company had sales of almost half a billion dollars per year (476M). That is reasonably large. There are also a number of articles mentioning him. The disadvantage of a redirect is that expanding the article about his company, something that is worthwhile, would be completely out of place in the election article. Auchansa (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As things stand, there is no article for the company (Vi-Jon Inc.) and any argument for notability based on company turnover would be for appropriateness of an article about the firm rather than its former CEO? (From 1978 in the article but 1992-2009 in the main article source.) AllyD (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if not significant enough for political mention or redirect. There are no significant mentions outside of political framing, does not pass WP:GNG. heather walls (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2012 (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. Appears to meet WP:N WilyD 15:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Advaita[edit]

Neo-Advaita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Does not meet wiki WP:GNG criteria and also with WP:SIGCOV, most of content are self published or from blogs , there has been no significant coverage in any media except for blogs , sources stated are either blatant hoax or not reliable according to Wikipedia policyShrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC). Some points to be noted:[reply]

1) The editor is proclaiming wrong information as truth and referring to a source which does not say that e.g. 1st sentence of the article : ""Neo-Advaita is a term used by critics to designate a modern, western form of Advaita Vedanta in which the traditional prerequisites of knowledge of the scriptures"" :: ref to (Davis, Leesa S. (2010), Advaita Vedānta and Zen Buddhism: Deconstructive Modes of Spiritual Inquiry, Continuum International Publishing Group) page 48 ! here is the Google link of page , neo advaitha ? it talks about neo vedantins and not neo advaitha ??

2) Using names of Ramana Maharishi,Vivekenanda & H. W. L. Poonja who in their lives or in writings have never even remotly used the word neo-advaita . Stating statements by the above authors and then naming it neo-advaitha does not make it reall!! (stating lies in-between truth) e.g. sun is round ,moon is round, America is round, Pluto is round.

-- Shrikanthv (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject meets GNG, while the article does need work, it is a clear keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment how does the subject meet GNG ? -- Shrikanthv (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:
  • Article meets GNG: "Lucas, Phillip Charles (2011), "When a Movement Is Not a Movement. Ramana Maharshi and Neo-Advaita in North America", Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. Vol. 15, No. 2 (November 2011) (pp. 93-114), JSTOR 10.1525/nr.2011.15.2.93", published by University of California Press, and accessible via JSTOR, is a field-research on neo-Advaita, describing the origins of neo-Advaita. See Neo-Advaita for quotes.
  • Notability: Eckhart Tolle is a well-known teacher, selling millions of books. Andrew Cohen is a widely disputed teacher, who started as a neo-Advaitin. Both are mentioned in journals and magazines. This is not a hoax.
  • First sentence:

"Neo-Advaita is a term used by critics^{[1][a][3][b][c]} to designate a modern, western form of Advaita Vedanta in which the traditional prerequisites of knowledge of the scriptures^[5] and "renunciation as necessary preparation for the path of jnana-yoga"^[5] have been discarded,^[6] and the inducement of direct experience is emphasized."

Notes

Book-references

Web-references

Sources

• Davis p.48 says: "This shift away from traditional emphasis on knowledge of the Vedas and renunciation as necessary preparation for the path of jnana-yoga".
• "Using names of Ramana Maharishi,Vivekenanda & H. W. L. Poonja who in their lives or in writings have never even remotly used the word neo-advaita . Stating statements by the above authors" - there are no statements by these teachers on neo-Advaita. Even a superficial reading of the article makes this clear. The term is used by critics of western Advaita-teachers who emphasize sole insight, bypassing preparation and practice.

-- Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I praise your hard work , but being the intention of wiki GNG concerned, the two main links you portray as references are:
  1)^ Marek 2008, p. 10, note 6. , IS a work of diplomant in vienna , It cannot have weigablity as a good source as it is work of a student which still has not been corrected by the university itself ? , and definetly as the student potrays in his thesis it is a maybe.
  2)^ Jacobs 204, p. 82. this source is really skeptical as nothing is written about publisher or the author and is only found in a private website and cannot be considered as source from books reference as this may be self created notes for the website and nothing more.
  3)Davis 2010, p. 48.Yogani 2011, p. 805.
  The above links are not concerned with neo-advaitha
  4)external sources : ^ Timothy Conway, Neo-Advaita or Pseudo-Advaita and Real Advaita-Nonduality; ^ James Swartz, What is Neo-Advaita?
  I believe this sources are dubious as the are personnel websites promoting there concepts. -- Shrikanthv (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reaction by Joshua Jonathan
  The main link I give is Phillip Charles Lucas, published in an academic jurnal. Gleig is a PhD-thesis. You may not like it, but it's clear that there is a neo-advaita movement in The USA and Europe, and that it's being critisized.
  Ad1. What's the "maybe"?
  Ad2. Jacob's article was published in the journal of the sriramanamaharshi.org. Of course I may be mistaken, but this seems to me to be as closely connected to Ramana Maharshi as possible.
  Ad3. Davis 2010 p.48 is about Ramana Maharshi and Poonja, indeed, not about students of them. Not exactly a consolation, is it?. Yoganini explicitly mentions Neo-Advaita at page 805:
  

  I say "neo-Advaita" because if we dig a bit we will find that the great Advaita and jnana yoga teachers clearly recognized the role of the witness, bhakti, and yoga practices. Neo-Asvaita is prone to strip it all down to the bare logic and expect that to be a viable stand-alone practice". (Yoganini, p.805)

  
  Ad4. advaita.org.uk seems to me like more than just "promoting concepts". --Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Strong keep! No doubt it meets GNG. Also, even though several of the neo-advaita teachers have their own article, there are so many more of them. They all have a common ground. Deleting this article would mean no WP coverage of this form of teaching that has influenced so many people. Lova Falk talk 12:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (see below) - The article lead reads, "Neo-Advaita is a term used by critics ... ." As noted in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." The terms reliable source use seems limited to What Is Enlightenment? (magazine) and Journal of Church and State. Significant coverage: What is Enlightenment? September 1, 2006. Other source material: What is Enlightenment? December 31, 2001, What is Enlightenment? December 1, 2005, Journal of Church and State January 1, 2006 (where footnote 22 explains, "The teachings of Sri Ramakrishna are based on Advaita Vedanta. Advaita, meaning nondualism, is one of the three schools of thought in Vedanta which in turn is one of the six orthodox systems of Indian Philosophy. Both Ramakrishna and his chief disciple Swami Vivekananda, particularly the latter, popularized an all-inclusive, syncretist version of Advaita Vedanta and taught that it is a valid means of attaining Truth that is available to the followers of all religions, including Islam and Christianity. This openness of approach and interpretation was meant to bring about the "harmony of all religions" and is an innovation that traditional Vedanta does not emphasize. Hence the claim that they follow "neoadvaitabad" or neo-Advaita."). I accept Shrikanthv's review of the other references noted in this AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the additional references.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary also says: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." It's clear that the article is about a new religious movement, not about the exact meaning of a specific word.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary also says: "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics[3]), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns." The article provides additional background information on the origins of this movement, and places it in the modern cultural exchanges between western and Asian cultures.
• The exact wording of the lead may be changed ("Neo-advaita is a term used by critics/is a modern interpretation of Advaita Vedanta which is critisized"); the point is that there are a lot of western Advaita-teachers who emphasize self-inquiry, disregarding other aspects of Advaita. This movement, and this criticism, has been noticed by above-mentioned sources.
• Lucas (article in a scientific journal), Gleig (PhD-dissertation), and Jacobs (article in the MountainPath, published by the Sri Ramana Ashram) are being ignored in this review. Regarding the additional info, situating neo-Advaita in western discoures: Brown is published in an academic journal; Gombrich, McMahan and Sharf are book-publications by academics.
• Recapitulating: at least three different Advaita-related organisations (Sri Ramana Ashram, advaita.org.uk and Andrew Cohen's What Is Enlightenment) mention neo-Advaita in several articles and on several webpages; several academics have conducted research on neo-Advaita; and neo-Advaita can be placed in a broader cultural development, which has been going on for more than a century and influences popular culture in many ways. My conclusion is that neo-Advaita is notable, and the article is based on reliable sources.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I noticed that you do a lot of work on Afd's. My apologies for the slight sarcastic undertone I put in my comment; I've changed the tone. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I didn't see the slight sarcastic undertone anyway. I think the big problem here is the article's focus still is on Neo-Advaita being a "term". When that is done, the topic falls under the difficult neologisms requirement. I think if you instead merely summarized what the reliable sources say about the topic (e.g., "representative survey of the relevant literature"), you can avoid the difficult neologisms requirements and get better results at AfD. The negative tone of the article is off putting, the excessive write up on "Advaita Vedanta" which is not the topic of the article, and the article's detailed reliance on sources that may not be Wikipedia:Independent sources - sources that are independent of the Neo-Advaita topic - are a problem. Reading the lead of the Neo-Advaita article, I still don't know what Neo-Advaita is. The Advaita Vedanta article isn't much better. I added a sentence to Advaita Vedanta at the top to try to explain what it is.[47] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I changed the lead so that the topic no longer is about a neologisms.[48] The rest of the article should be rewritten in a history section with any criticism etc. chronogically intermixed with the rest of Neo-Advaita's history. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that we have reached consensus to keep the article? Lova Falk talk 18:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closer - Basically, the issue is what name to give to the Wikipedia article. What is going on is you have is thousand year old Advaita Vedanta religion (traditional Advaita Vedanta in India with three requirements (1. reading, 2. renunciation, and 3. meditation experience) and 100 year old Neo-Advaita religion (Advaita Vedanta lite in the west which focuses on 3. meditation experience). Advaita Vedanta lite practicers would claim that they are practicing traditional Advaita Vedanta whereas traditional Advaita Vedanta's would say Advaita Vedanta lite in the west is not Advaita Vedanta because they don't do as much 1) reading and 2) renunciation as traditional Advaita Vedanta in India. Traditional Advaita Vedanta then want to call Advaita Vedanta lite in the west "Neo-Advaita" whereas Advaita Vedanta lite practitioners would want to refer to their practice as Advaita Vedanta, which is where Wikipedia comes in. Both traditional Advaita Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta lite are two separate topics that each meet WP:GNG. The disputes would be 1. what to call the Advaita Vedanta lite article and 2. what information makes up Advaita Vedanta lite topic to include in the Advaita Vedanta lite/Neo-Advaita article. AfD isn't set up to address either and those are different issues from that decided at AfD. I don't think there any pro-Neo-Advaita editors writing in Wikipedia, so the Neo-Advaita article is more negative due to Wikipedia participation by traditional Advaita Vedanta editors but there is no actual dispute between Wikipedia editors. The Neo-Advaita article seem to include an effort to "prove" Neo-Advaita is the name of the western version of Advaita Vedanta, which is original research. There are some source material using Neo-Advaita and the 100 year old Neo-Advaita religion is a topic that meets WP:GNG, so it seems reasonable to use "Neo-Advaita" for now until something better comes along. In short, keep Neo-Advaita at AfD and any disputes in the future can be handled some place besides AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the topic is even more complicated: there is neo-Vedanta (Vivekananda and others), which originated in India but incorporated western influences, which emphasizes meditation c.q. nivikalpa-samadhi, and there is neo-Advaita, which took over Advaita Vedanta teachings but is basically a western movement. There are pro-Neo-Advaita editors, and yes, they do object the lable "Neo-Advaita". But the term is also being used by scientific researchers. And anyway, it's fascinating how the interplay between western colonialism and Asian cultures resulted in a complex amalgam of ideas, both in Asia and in the west. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2012 (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. The votecount here is very close, with both sides giving plausible arguments. However, the "delete" side has the edge here, for the following reasons: 1) Several "keep" opinions are based on his awards, but there is no indication that they are significant or well-known. In addition, several of the claims to awards are not supported by reliable sources. 2) As for his bestselling book, nothing in WP:AUTHOR talks about popularity of books sales as a criterion for the author's notability. 3) Much of the coverage about him or his books is in unreliable sources such as self-published sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hawkins[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

David R. Hawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 25. Procedural nomination, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. My opinion from the first nomination has not changed. Based on my searching, the subject fails all three of the possible categories for inclusion here: BIO, AUTHOR or ACADEMIC. Fails WP:BIO; Google News Archive does not find any significant coverage by reliable sources (the only Reliable Souce article I found was a Boston Globe article about the subject's marital problems; I am not arguing this makes him notable, but rather pointing out that the only coverage found is irrelevant to his claims of notabiliy). Fails WP:AUTHOR; his books are mostly self-published (with the exception of one long-ago book co-authored by Linus Pauling and published by Freeman) and are not reviewed by any Reliable Sources. Fails WP:ACADEMIC; nothing found at Google Scholar. BTW please check out the article's log; this article has been deleted numerous times; after the latest deletion the closing administrator found it necessary to salt the title due to repeated recreations. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW in his dust jacket biography he calls himself "Sir" David R. Hawkins; what's the "Sir" about? --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• According to his biography on amazon "In 1995, in a ceremony officiated by the H.H. Prince Valdemar of Schaumburg-Lippe at the San Anselmo Theological Seminary, he became a knight of the Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem (founded in 1077) in recognition of his contributions to humanity.". This claim appears to be as much a fabrication as his "research". The principality of Schaumburg-Lippe had never had a prince by that name and in 1995, the title was held by Friedrich Wolrad, Philipp-Ernst, Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe. The only Prince Valdemar I can find was of Denmark, who died in 1939, and neither of them had anything to do with any version of the Knights Hospitaller.Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also can't imagine the San Anselmo Theological Seminary (that's not even its correct name - it's the San Francisco Theological Seminary, which is located in San Anselmo) having anything to do with such a ceremony - or with him. BS detector clanging loudly. Delete and salt. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was covered in one of the previous discussions. It's a phoney honour which was available at the time to purchase by responding to a magazine ad. Formerip (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Prince Waldemar of Schaumburg-Lippe does exist. Not that I can see any acceptable evidence that he is a Hospitaller, whether of a legitimate or a phony one, let alone any relationship whatever between him and David Hawkins. PWilkinson (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as entirely valid. When people have no knowledge of spirituality, they condemn that that they don't understand. The writers of this unfortunate recommendation for deletion, while no doubt sincere in their misunderstanding, simply fail to appreciate the value of Dr. Hawkins work. It's regrettable that despite Dr. Hawkins commitment to Truth (one of his books is entitled "Truth vs Falsehood"), some continue to condemn his work as false. Yet Dr. Hawkins's book contains the admonition "Enslavement by illusion is comfortable; it is the liberation by Truth that people fear." I trust that the writers of this page recognize the validity of this statement! Yes, Dr Hawkins is definitely a spiritual writer, but why would that disqualify him for inclusion? CrisBCT (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • whether we trust the validity of your statement or not, what determines whether a topic should have a stand alone article is whether or not it meets the general notability guidelines as a first hurdle. If you fail to address those concerns, all of your personal claims of "truth" and "worthiness" will be accounted for nothing in this discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CrisBCT's comments above amount to merely WP:ILIKEIT and should be discarded by the closer unless policy-based reasons are added. DES ^(talk) 01:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's regrettable that despite Dr. Hawkins commitment to Truth (one of his books is entitled "Truth vs Falsehood"), some continue to condemn his work as false. - There is a philosophical issue at stake here. If Hawkins was committed to falsehood, then he would also (falsely) claim that he was committed to truth. Thus we cannot take his word for it. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Why is my time being wasted with this re-list? There do not seem to be any reliable sources independent of the subject which discuss him in any detail, aside from this one. Formerip (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I closed the last Afd, and followed the DRV to some extent. During the DRV I looked through the sources and did some searching myself, and I'm not convinced that he meets WP:AUTHOR. I'm also troubled by the lack of 3rd party reliable sources covering him. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing in the article changed since the first nomination to address my concerns. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have just notified everyone (I think!) who commented in either the first AfD or the review unless the person had already placed a comment in this discussion. LadyofShalott 16:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- with no further objections if deleted: Though his book Power vs. Force has been considered a best-seller in several languages, and he has been interviewed in various national mainstream capacities, it is overwhelmingly clear that this author has other issues which are in contention by Wikipedia/Wikipedians, who feel that the article does not meet the purposes here, however it is deemed fit. The author himself doesn't care to be listed with this website. I personally believe the author should be listed here for those seeking unbiased information, either for or against this authors work, but there is no point further arguing the matter; people can find it elsewhere if they so choose. Having previously been the primary proponent for recreating and continuing to make the article available, the most recent English Wikipedia body 'consensus' has been to delete and you have no further objection or refute from this editor if it is deleted. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy keep As I clearly stated, he is notable and received awards. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What awards? The article makes no mention of them, and I didn't see any sources showing any awards. They would need to be "well-known and significant awards" in order to establish notability for the subject. - SudoGhost 17:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example (from the German article) Tae Ryoung Sun Kak Tosa and his books topped the bestseller lists. One book was translated in 15 languages, which is a big deal. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huxley Award, Physicians Recognition Award of the American Medical Association, Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame, Distinguished Life Fellows honor of the American Psychiatric Association, etc. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that the German article has no sources? Formerip (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In German Wikipedia in-line citations are not a requirement. You can google it after all. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing this isn't the German Wikipedia then. The awards you listed are not "well known and significant awards", especially if there isn't even a reliable source verifying any of them. - SudoGhost 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Huxley and Orthomolecular medicine awards are from pseudoscientific fringe groups; they are not notable nor do they indicate anything about notability. The other awards are merely procedural following specific criteria by the different groups respectively and are expected from any life long Psychiatrist/Physician. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those unaware of the previous AfD discussion and subsequent DRV you may wish to refer to the closed Deletion Review Discussion and click 'show' for other information discussed on this author. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article does not meet any of the criteria in the notability guidelines. The relevant ones seem to be WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:PROF, and this individual does not appear to meet the criteria listed at any of these. - SudoGhost 18:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion.  This essay states, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why."  Unscintillating (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Hawkins is not wp:notable. According to www.worldcat.org: Hawkins, David R. 1927, in the graph under the section Publication Timeline, there are no "Publications about David R Hawkins" from 1970 to 2020. Most of his works are self published at Veritas Publishing, a self-publishing house owned by Hawkins himself. None of his works, or resume, on his webpage at About David R Hawkins has been validated by any wp:reliable wp:independent sources. The wiki article, at present, only uses one wp:reliable wp:independent source from the Skeptics Dictionary at The Skeptics Dictionary: David R. Hawkins.

1. In regards to Mother Teresa, Lee Iacocca, Sam Walton, and Wayne Dyer, they may have had good things to say about Hawkin's book Power vs. Force but does not contribute to any notability on Hawkins part. Further, no one has been able to produce any wp:independent sources to back up any of their quotes anyway.
2. In regards to Oprah's interview with Hawkins, no one has been able to produce a wp:reliable wp:independent source that summarizes the interview, nor a published record of the interview (within the limits of WP:THIRDPARTY). A small blurb regarding Hawkin's book Power vs. Force is mentioned at Oprah's interview with Hawkins, which serves only to validate the book written by Hawkins but does not serve to make him notable. When running a search at Oprah's website, Oprah's search engine for David Hawkins, the only commentary that comes up is the same "blurb" about his book.
3. In regards to an alleged interview with Barbara Walters, this was misinterpreted from a website that violates WP:NWEB at Barbara Walters: Age confusion. There is no interview with Barbara Walters and David R Hawkins listed on this page nor any mention of it at Global Oneness Encyclopedia: David R Hawkins. Further, no one has been able to produce a wp:reliable source concerning an alleged interview with Barbara Walters. The only source from which this stems, that I could find, came from The Pirate Bay (Warning! This site is not condoned by me or Wikipedia. Clicking this link may result in viruses).
4. In regards to (par. "Mainstream scientists...), this content could be moved to the Applied kinesiology page and reworded to wp:scope, perhaps under the subsection Applied kinesiology#Criticism.
5. In regards to the German related article, David R Hawkins (German version), their standards of providing reliable sources may be different from the wiki English policies. At present, no sources are provided at that page, and it has been argued that sources are not even required to be listed. From what I gather, the German wiki does have Wikipedia:Richtlinien (policies) at Wikipedia:Keine Theoriefindung#Theoriedarstellung (Wikipedia: No original research#Representation theory), where it says: "Alle Artikel in der Wikipedia sollen auf Informationen aus bereits veröffentlichten und möglichst verlässlichen Informationsquellen beruhen. (All articles in Wikipedia should be based on information already published and most reliable sources of information.)" Also, their definition of Original research under Wikipedia:Keine Theoriefindung#Was ist Theoriefindung?, is "Was ist Theoriefindung? Das betrifft insbesondere unveröffentlichte Theorien... (What is original research? This particularly applies to unpublished theories...)" It also states in the following paragraph, "Publikationen im Selbst- oder Zuschussverlag und private Websites sind in aller Regel ungeeignet, wenn sie keine entsprechende Rezeption in der Fachwelt in Form von wissenschaftlichen Zitationen gefunden haben. (Publications in self- or subsidy publishing and private websites are generally inappropriate when no corresponding reception in the art in the form of scientific citations found.)" Therefore, I continue to argue that the German version page is in just as much violation as the English version.
6. In conclusion, biographies, especially for living persons should be scrutinized more so than religious or scientific articles. This article fails WP:NOTABLE, fails WP:RELIABLE, is WP:UNSOURCED, fails WP:SELFPUB, fails WP:WELLKNOWN, fails WP:NPF, fails WP:BLPTALK, and fails WP:BLPSOURCES. (See Talk:David R. Hawkins#WP:SELFPUBLISH for further reasons behind these failures.)

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As a point of order, the German article, de:David R. Hawkins, is very far from unsourced. It lacks inline citations but that's quite normal on de.wiki, where they're very strict about some things (e.g. no fair use images at all, flagged revisions implemented everywhere, vandals blocked on their first edit without warning) and lax by our standards with others. What matters on de.wiki is whether academic sources exist (whether or not they're cited), and Hawkins can have an article on de.wiki as the author of academic sources irrespective of whether he's mentioned in academic sources. Their notability rules are obviously very different from ours.

  I see all the alphabet soup supporting each side's position and I'm not really interested, recognising that this is a borderline case and we need to exercise judgment. Hawkins is a chap at the end of a long and fairly distinguished career as a serious psychologist, who also happens to be a mystic who's written some material of dubious credibility. Personally I think it's right that we have articles about mystics and pseudoscientists: as encyclopaedia ditors, we're essentially educators. Our role is to inform our readers. That does include informing readers about misconceptions and pseudoscience. We aren't Snopes, of course, but I do think this article is probably appropriate if only for that reason.—S Marshall T/C 18:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And that's why you have Applied kinesiology#Criticism to discuss the misconceptions and pseudoscience that Hawkins brings to the table, but is not worth his own page. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, I'm afraid. Does the fact that we've got that mean that we can't have this?—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• request - I have seen multiple claims of "awards" - can someone provide verification of which awards the person has been granted. As shown above at least some of the "awards" such as the "knight of the Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem" appear to be pure hokum. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable author & pseudoscientist. WorldCat listing, showing wide holdings of his books: [49] The editing of the article and the comments at the earlier AfD and deletion review show a concerted effort to discard or deny all possibly relevant material. I personally have a very considerable prejudice against pseudoscientists and spiritual writers, and have read enough to be thoroughly disgusted by that entire approach. but that shouldn't affect my judgement here about who is notable in that field. I think with the given material we'd have accepted the article were he writing on any other subject. Deletion of this would amount to prejudice. Prejudice in our setting means the deliberate non-inclusion of material we think to be wrong--as we cannot openly say so, it is usually expressed by a hyper-critical attitude towards the sources. (I agree that some of he claims made for him, including the knighthood, are not significant, and need to be neutrally reported not implicitly endorsed. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey DGG, that's really interesting that you bring up www.worldcat.org: Hawkins, David R. 1927. Did you notice the Publication Timeline? From 1970 to 2020, the key indicates that there are No "Publications about David R Hawkins"! The graph only indicates "Publications by David R Hawkins". I find it humorous how you as an admin view notability by promoting wp:selfpub with no wp:independent sources to back up your support in all of the various page comments that you've made on Hawkins. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 19:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wide holding argument isn't policy and guideline based, see WP:AUTHOR for the actual requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If he is an author of multiple books and even a pseudoscientist, that makes him notable, not non-notable, right? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, being an author of multiple books does not make someone notable. See WP:AUTHOR. Formerip (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • (e/c)wrong? under the notabilty description for both books and authors it is that there has been critical reception of the books and not merely the production of a book that establishes notability. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to have my own pseudoscience books self-published, that way according to some folks, like DGG, it will make me notable enough to have my own wikipedia article! Who needs wp:independent sources anyway, right?   — Jasonasosa 19:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please try to comment on content, rather than on other contributors, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 10-4   — Jasonasosa 22:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: notability is obvious, to me -- particularly when one considers the article in a state prior to its being gutted. He has received coverage in a wide range of sources -- that's notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be, if these sources could be named. Formerip (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

when one considers the older version, one sees that the content is based on sources like [ holisticnetworker.com ] -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For an author his works are barely cited. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt as not notable, no refs from reliable sources, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, and WP:PROF. GregJackP Boomer! 20:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Columnists from periodicals[edit]

• Keep - (I was notified of this discussion due to my posting at the Hawkins DRV.)[50]) This used to be a give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile articles. Allowed some editors to have a David R. Hawkins Wikipedia article and they posted an endless stream of information cited to anything without regard to whether the source is a Wikipedia reliable source, without regard to whether the source is connected to David R. Hawkins, and without regard to presenting it in an encyclopedic manner. However, the hard work of other Wikipedians have overcome that and those non Wikipedia notability problems are not there now. I think S Marshall and DGG have good points. Also, Hawkins is at the end of a long and fairly distinguished career (born 1927) and there is strong bias against him/his work outside of Wikipedia and that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. In searching for information on Hawkins, there was some information (listed below)for David Hawkins and kinesiology. Those sources brought up his book Power vs. Force, which was a Globe and Mail listed number 1 best seller.[51] David Hawkins and Power vs. Force puts Hawkins in the news since April 2002. Independent reliable source coverage of that book likely includes some biographical material on David R. Hawkins. A lot of the reliable source coverage that I found are only book author appearance notices, but some include material that would be good for the article (e.g., [52]) Some information:

• Elaine Voci (November 1, 2003). "On the night stand". T&D. 57 (11): 85. Retrieved August 26, 2012. Psychiatrist David Hawkins was knighted by Danish royalty for the work presented in Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. He teaches readers that on a primal level, the human brain is a wondrous computer linked to a universal energy field and consciousness can be calibrated on a ladder of spiritual enlightenment. The book is for readers with diverse interests in such subjects as attractor patterns for businesses, kinesiology, and personal transformation.
• Candice Hannigan (April 15, 2004). "Community Of Faith". Atlanta Journal and Constitution. p. 5. David Hawkins, author of "Power vs. Force," will present a workshop ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
• Doug Guthrie and Kendra S (July 28, 2005). "MSU slips new fees onto tab: In addition to fall tuition hikes, students will pay hundreds of dollars in surprise costs". The Detroit News. p. A01. Retrieved August 26, 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)

Note: this item refers to a different David Hawkins.[53] --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Barbara Routen (January 11, 2007). "Democratic Club Elects Its Officers And Directors". Tampa Tribune. p. 2. Retrieved August 26, 2012. Unity in Brandon presents a videotaped workshop by David R. Hawkins, author of "Power Vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior," from 7 to 9 p.m. Friday, Jan. 19 and 26 at Unity, 115 Margaret St., Suites D and E. Hawkins is a psychiatrist, researcher, lecturer and author who first embraced atheism, then suffered from an illness that did not respond to treatment and then lived a hermit's existence for seven years. Close to death in 1965, he had a spiritual awakening and began his recovery, research and writing. In 2003 he became affiliated with the Unity Church. In his book "Power Vs. Force," Linda Compton, spokeswoman for Unity in Brandon, said Hawkins "conclusively proves the ability of kinesiological testing to distinguish truth or falsehood in any statement. He goes on to demonstrate the application of his method in commerce, art, sport, etc. He explains its spiritual application as a path to enlightenment." ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
• Louisa Deasey (May 25, 2008). "Good vibrations. Focusing on the upbeat and thinking positive will lift your mood and your spirits. By Louisa Deasey". The Daily Telegraph (Australia). p. 16. Retrieved August 26, 2012. In the seminal book on the subject, Power vs Force, by David Hawkins (Hay House), Hawkins discusses the beginnings of kinesiological testing by Dr John Diamond, and how simple methods tested on thousands of people have proven certain words, foods, objects and ideas have the capacity to weaken or strengthen our bodies just by being in our energy field. etc. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
• Jeff Pierce (July 11, 2011). "Power and Force in Your Trading". The Business Insider. Retrieved August 26, 2012.

In view of what I found, what now is in the article and the state of the article due to the hard work of Wikipedians, and the above source material, I think the topic meets WP:GNG and there should be a stand alone biographical article on Hawkins. Wikipedia is the only place on the Internet where pseudoscientist can be presented in an encyclopedic matter and people should be able to find a place on the Internet to become educated about Hawkins. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work digging up material. Unfortunately it isn't enough. The fact that he gives workshops does not add to his notability. Many of the quotes you cited are simply people regurgitating what Hawkins says about himself (even falling for the "knighthood" scam). I can't see the Australia Daily Telegraph item; it does sound like a Reliable Source mention or possibly even full review, but it isn't enough by itself. "The Business Insider" is not very impressive as a "reliable source". Finally, he may have had a "long and distinguished career" in some people's opinion, but per a search of Google Scholar, it wasn't enough to meet the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Anyhow his mainstream career appears to be irrelevant to any fame he may have acquired. I tried really hard to find information about his academic career so I could add it to the article (where was he on staff? for how long? what was his title?) but I couldn't find a thing. He doesn't include any of that information in his resume, and his professional career doesn't seem to have left any mark on the world at all. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources go towards establishing notability. You quoted the entire portion on Hawkins from Voci - that is hardly in-depth coverage, nor is it a book review. It is trivial, passing mention. The other refs are similarly not sufficient. GregJackP Boomer! 15:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These references make me despair. Workshop notices? Let alone two of them. Not even bothering to notice that one of them is to a David R Hawkins who is a Professor of Animal Sciences and not the subject of this article? Jeff Pierce is a blogger who runs Zentrading.ca. Elaine Voci is clearly just repeating what she's read and can't be used, esp. as she repeats the knighthood claim which is a BLP violation until it is reliably sourced. Maybe the Australia Daily Telegraph article is ok but I can't tell as I can't read it either. Can anyone? Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I couldn't read the Voci article either. Preview is blocked.   — Jasonasosa 16:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't locate the Australian Daily telegraph article, either through the link provided and navigating the archive, nor through a site specific search, nor through google news. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the people that tidied up the article before it was nominated for AfD. The sourcing is inadequate for notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He does not have an actual knighthood, as formerip pointed out in the DRV, according to [54], any news report that claims he did has done little investigative work. His claimed awards: Huxley, Orthomolecular are fringe pseudoscience awards. The Psychiatry awards are standard achievements for any psychiatrist with a long career; see their requirements. The sourcing is rather lacking, this is the only reliable source we have for the article: [55]. Those pointed out by Uzma are unreliable (they repeat the false knighthood claim), one is a different person, one is a blog, one is a standard notification. These aren't good sources. He does not meet WP:AUTHOR either. His books are barely cited (WP:FRINGE: "One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. "); what impact has he had as an author? Basically David Hawkins is as notable as any other Psychiatrist of similar experience; not notable enough. The only difference is that he has written books on pseudoscience; from WP:FRINGE we look for the reliable mainstream sources: WP:FRINGE#Reliable sources not fringe sourcing. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete basically as per IRWolfie above. There is some reason, based on the Mother Teresa material and the Sri Lanka, I think?, award to believe that the subject might be discussed in media of the subcontinet a bit more than I can see on the various newsbanks available to me, but that is without evidence as yet. He has apparently written a single book which might have apparently, possibly, received enough attention for a separate article. But that would be an article on the book, not on its author. The evidence shows very little material discussing the author himself, or any of his other books, and on that basis, I have to say that, so far as I can see, the subject of this article, Hawkins himself, rather clearly and obviously fails to meet notability criteria. No opinion on the notability of the Power vs. Force book, however. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  WP:N notability is not defined by the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article, which is relevant because this article has been reduced from 80,000 bytes with 153 reflist entries.  Hawkins has a new book scheduled to release on 1 October 2012, ref.  The "About the Author" from that page states, "David R. Hawkins, MD, PhD, is an internationally renowned psychiatrist, consciousness researcher, spiritual lecturer and mystic. Author of more than eight volumes, including the bestseller Power vs. Force, Dr Hawkins's work has been translated into more than 17 languages..."  Here is a book reviewed by Reed Business Information that has ten pages that discuss Hawkins:

• Wayne W. Dyer (1 October 2010). The Power of Intention: Learning to Co-create Your World Your Way. Hay House, Inc. ISBN 978-1-4019-2596-3. Retrieved 2012-09-09.

The German Wikipedia has a number of references, and the references have references, and whether or not the references are wp:reliable we have plenty of evidence that the topic has attracted attention from the world at large, and a long history to match.  Especially tricky is the indication that Wikipedia is itself a part of the history of this topic.  Within Wikipedia, the vigor with which this topic has been assailed speaks to a denial that this topic is understood to be "worthy of notice".  As per the lede of WP:N, WP:N requires only that the topic be "worthy of notice", and the extensive library holdings alone pass this test.  This said, given the current state of the article, I am ok with routing it to the incubator.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, I am sure you realize that the publicity blurb for a forthcoming book does not in any way constitute an Independent Reliable Source about the author. And the link you posted leads to a book (published by the same publisher which has published some of Hawkins' work), but there is no way to tell what is said in that book. "Wikipedia is itself a part of the history of this topic"- what does that mean? --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about a publicity blurb, and if your point is to question Amazon about the career of Hawkins that I quoted, which point do you think was puffed?  Here is the list to choose from:

• MD
• PhD
• internationally renowned
• psychiatrist
• consciousness researcher
• spiritual lecturer
• mystic
• Author of more than eight volumes
• including the bestseller Power vs. Force
• Dr Hawkins's work has been translated into more than 17 languages

As for the book link, that book has most of the ten pages available for preview.  To verify, I clicked on the link, typed "Hawkins" in the search box, enabled Javascript, and the next click produced a result of ten pages.  So your statement that "there is no way to tell what is said in that book" seems instead to be a problem between you and Google.  As for the statement about Wikipedia being a part of the history of this topic, I've already forgotten exactly what I saw, and I'll strike the comment if you want, but in looking through the references on the German Wikipedia, there is one site with a copy of a letter from Veritas Publishing, and another site reports that Hawkins or his attorneys got a few web pages taken down.  There is another site that attends to the fact that the article on Wikipedia disappeared at one point.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb from Amazon is not independent research by Amazon. That's not how it works. Such blurbs are supplied by the publisher. Everything in that list is from the publisher, thus directly or indirectly from Hawkins himself. Such "information" is commonly a copy-and-paste from the book jacket. It adds nothing to what is already known about Hawkins, and it certainly contributes nothing to his notability. It is intended to sell books. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:MelanieN is right. The bio on Hawkins at Amazon is taken directly from Hawkins' website at: About David R Hawkins. This matter is like a dog chasing its tail.   — Jasonasosa 14:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To totally put to rest the notion that Amazon might be a reliable source: the elaborate and obviously phony description of his "knighthood", cited above, comes from his biography at Amazon.[56] --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No MelanieN, you are mistaken. The bio on Amazon, including the knighthood, directly comes from Hawkins own website, About David R Hawkins.   — Jasonasosa 15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that nothing found at Amazon can be regarded as an independent or reliable source. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I just had to make that slight correction because it is important to note where the original source comes from. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 15:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You're right that the author of the other book, Wayne Dyer, falls all over himself praising Hawkins. (I also note that his book is published by Hay House, which also publishes some of Hawkins' work.) Still, I'll give you this as a book which gives coverage to Hawkins. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct MelanieN (talk · contribs), Dyer editorializes with "In this remarkable book" (p.74), "compelling statistics" (p.113), "fascinating observations" (p.231), "offers us this wisdom" (p.233), "in his illuminating book" (p.250). How many times does Dyer have to tell his audience how awesome Hawkin's book is? Don't you think its a little over the top, like he's trying to really prove something because maybe... nobody knows Hawkins? To my knowledge, Hay House is only published one book of Hawkins "Power vrs. Force" which is the book that Dyer talks up so much about. Maybe Dyer's was paid by Hay House to talk it up so that they could get more sales off of Hawkins book! How can we at wikipedia promote this crap?   — Jasonasosa 15:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The references in the article seem to be sufficient in order to establish the notability of the subject.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some previous voters thoroughly analyzed these references and found them insufficient for the reasons explained. Please list the references which you think are good, so that we may specifically discuss them and possibly accept your position. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Several people have asked for more information about the "prizes" or "honors" claimed for this subject. One of his claimed honors is the "Physician Recognition Award" from the American Medical Association (cited above by Great Orange Pumpkin and others to show he has recieved "awards"). In fact, this "award" means next to nothing, and anyone who cites it is pathetically inflating their resume. Basically, the "Physician Recognition Award" is a piece of paper that you get from the AMA if you self-report to them that you have done a certain number of hours of Continuing Medical Education. Since all physicians do CME to meet state licensing requirements, the only thing that distinguishes a recipient of the "Physician Recognition Award" is that they bothered to fill out the paperwork and send it in to the AMA. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete despite some heroic attempts to improve the article it still lacks a single source that has him as the primary topic from a reliable source (or any source?). As far as I can tell the current references given only verify that Hawkins is what he is claimed to be in little more than passing reference. Also the Louise Deasey source in further reading doesn't appear to exist, and the third is a blog post http://www.zentrader.ca/blog/?p=7749 that I would remove from any other article as blog spam. (removed) The only real source appears to be http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter58.html which I can't claim to be reliable or neutral - if taken as accurate and at value the article would read "Dawkins is a quack/friendly fruitcase", and not David R. Hawkins is an American author on applied kinesiology. - Can't simply take sources as proof of notability and then ignore what they say...Oranjblud (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Hang on is this the same D. Hawkins with a stream of publications about Ascorbic acid mostly in association with Linus Pauling (ie the vitamins as a cure for diseases stuff) ?? If so his earlier work may well be far more notable than the 'crank stuff'.Oranjblud (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any about ascorbic acid. Linus Pauling appears as co-author on one of Hawkins' books. It was published in 1973 and hasn't gotten much citation (89 at Google Scholar). When mentioned by others, it is usually credited to Pauling. Writing a book with a notable co-author does not make one notable. (With typical hyperbole, Hawkins' biography at Amazon claims that this book, Orthomolecular Psychiatry, was "groundbreaking" and "pioneering" and "initiated a new field within psychiatry". In contrast, the Wikipedia article on the subject doesn't even mention Hawkins, and says the field was founded 20 years earlier by Abraham Hoffer. Pauling is credited with coining the term "orthomolecular" five years before their book was published. More evidence that we need to stop providing a Wikipedia forum for this guy's exaggerated claims.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm seeing nothing but blog stuff and YouTube videos. Applied kinesiology should definitely have a page, but this individual does not seem to clear the notability bar. Leaving a redirect to that page from his name might be a good outcome. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a redirect is left, I suggest that it be protected and the edit history deleted. This article has been recreated so many times, I think it would be unwise to leave an editable page here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but a redirect of this topic to applied kinesiology is an insult to reason.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Unscintillating (talk · contribs). That would not be appropriate to redirect to that page because that could be misinterpreted as Hawkins being an alternate source for applied kinesiology. It just doesn't even make sense to do that. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 07:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a redirect would be an "insult to reason," but I agree that, given the subject co-wrote at least one apparently reasonable article published in a reputable journal before becoming tied to applied kinesiology, it would probably be inappropriate because somewhat misleading, as it would give the impression that all he wrote about is applied kinesiology. As I said earlier, though, if the Power vs. Force book can be established to meet notability, as I think it might be able to, then a redirect from this page to an article on that book, which would presumably have a section on its author, wouldn't be out of line. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If such a page does get written and passes Wikipedia's criteria (and I agree it might), a redirect page could be created then. If the title has been salted, it is easy enough to ask for an unsalt. While he may have done other things in his career, this appears to be the only thing that gives him any claim at all to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep a google books search shows that he has critics and supporters. Hence, if people are talking about him and he's published then people might be searching places like wikipedia for information about him. SalHamton (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really useful to provide links - what you are describing seems to be a much higher level of sourcing than has previously been put forward. Formerip (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would be particularly helpful if there were some indication as to which of the books at Google books have a significant enough discussion of him to basically meet the notability threshold, and which of them are, unfortunately, self-published books by others or from other sources which are at best dubious to establish notability. Unfortunately, I know of a number of, well, crank/crackpot self-published books out there which give significant discussion to any number of really, um, interesting theories that one often thinks were written by people who live in rooms with very soft walls. I do not know whether self-published sources about fringe-of-the-fringe theories are sufficient to establish notability, but I suppose they might be. In any event, it would be useful to know which books one sees at Google books which one thinks enough to establish notability, and, possibly, who published them. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Seems many contributors to this article either love Hawkins or hate him. That is beside the point. I have taken the time to read enough of his books to know that they've sold enough copies, and make at least as much sense, as the work of any other "new thought" philosopher with a firmly established presence on Wikipedia. With respect to those that suggest deletion, I recommend digging a bit deeper for the facts about the man, then decide whether you still think a David Hawkins entry should be "censored" from Wikipedia. The joke is, I doubt Hawkins himself considers it relevant whether he's listed here or not. Those who have found inspiration from his writings, however, might want this listing Kept. My sympathies lie with them, based on the facts I have just mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldblank (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What reason do you have to keep the article though, is it "sold enough copies"? That doesn't give any notability to the article about the person, it wouldn't even give notability to the books themselves. I think two AfDs worth of discussion should have uncovered at least some "facts about the man" that would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Being interesting or inspiring is not a reason to be included in an encyclopedia, everyone is interesting to someone. - SudoGhost 00:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I personally question the apparent judgment that many of those who have commented either "love him or hate him." While I do believe that there is at least one editor who seems to be rather driven by his own opinions on this matter, I can speak for myself, and I think several others, that I personally don't care about him one way or another. The fact that some editors are inspired by his books is useful, but individual editors generally are not considered sources sufficient to establish notability. So far as I have seen myself, on the various periodical databanks available to me, his notability is not clearly established. Simply being an inspiration to some individuals, including editors, is not sufficient - significant coverage in independent reliable sources is. And I also want to go on record as being happy to see Geraldblank above has come back to wikipedia after two years of inactivity, and very much look forward to seeing him significantly add to his total of 11 edits to date. John Carter (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further, nowhere in any of at least 6 different wiki pages (including talkpages) worth of debates has anyone ever indicated that they "love" Hawkins, nor "hate" him. No one has ever alluded to terms of endearment or disgust. The dispute has been very strict and clear... a huge barrier like line drawn down the center between being notable or not. This has come down to endorsing self published books versus reliable independent verification. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 23:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the arguments have not been similar on both sides; they do not seem to be talking about the same thing. The people saying "keep" mostly argue that Hawkins is important or valuable, or they praise his ideas or his writings. The people saying "delete" mostly discuss the notability issue: what are the sources, are they reliable, are they independent, are they significant, and do they support the statements made? In other words, it seems to me that one side cites notability (as defined by Wikipedia) much more than the other does. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:N only has one requirement, that a topic be "worthy of notice"; which is elsewhere described as "attracts attention".  Your extra effort to prove that this topic does not attract attention seems to itself show the power of this topic to attract attention.  How should someone reading consensus in this discussion read your extra effort?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is the most twisted logic I have seen in a long time. The fact that I am going out of my way to say he is not notable, proves that he is notable??? Anyhow, you are dead wrong about the "one requirement" of WP:N. It does not require that a topic be "worthy of notice," which is a judgment call; it requires that a topic "have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time", which is an objective factual assessment. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:N states, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • It also says a lot more than that. However, even if that was the only thing WP:N said that wouldn't somehow make this article notable, because this "worthiness" has to be demonstrated through reliable sources, you can't just claim it's notable because John Doe thinks that it's interesting. WP:N also says that "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." Where are these sources? - SudoGhost 04:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The previous quote has taken text from WP:NRVE in a way that might leave readers thinking that WP:NRVE requires evidence of verifiable sources.  WP:V is the policy that requires verifiable sources.  WP:V has not only has a strong sourcing requirement, it is a policy.  And WP:V is a reason in WP:Deletion policy for deletion.  Back to WP:NRVE, here is the entire first sentence from WP:NRVE, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."  WP:N is rife with exceptions such as "The common theme..."  But one sentence that has no such qualification is, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Your interpretation of "worthy of notice" apparently differs from the majority of Wikipedia editors, and isn't in line with how notability is determined. Unless you can show with multiple third-party reliable sources exactly how this article is "worthy of notice" those are meaningless words, because everything is "worthy of notice" to someone. I found a rock outside my home, that doesn't mean it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because I found it "worthy of notice". Cherry-picking that single term and focusing on it doesn't somehow make this article notable, "worthiness" has to be shown, and there are multiple ways to do that on Wikipedia (WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO), and this article doesn't meet a single one of these ways. - SudoGhost 00:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It is a multiple fallacy to assert a fallacy of the majority with a proof by assertion.  Interesting that a moment ago, a couple of delete editors were trying to imply that none of the keep editors were using policy/guideline based arguments, and now the previous post dismisses the plain English meaning of the lede of WP:N, which states, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'."  This post would have us to believe that only the pre-defined paths of WP:GNG and the SNGs are used to determine "worthy of notice".  And that even if such were allowed, no evidence has been provided, and that even if evidence has been provided, it was not done with sources that could be cited on the article page.  Worldcat lists six of the 17 language translations claimed by Amazon for Power vs. Force; those being English, French, Spanish, Korean, Japanese, and Chinese.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Wikipedia works by consensus, so if you're suggesting that a consensus is a "fallacy of the majority" then you're on the wrong website. Cherry-picking a single term and "lawyering" the letter of the wording as opposed to the actual meaning and ignoring the entire rest of the guideline is not going to make this article notable. You've suggested that this article is "worthy of notice". There are a multitude of ways Wikipedia has to determine that, and this article does not meet a single one of those ways. Asserting that an article is "worthy of notice" without showing that worth through reliable sources does not make it notable, and basically boils down to a WP:ITSINTERESTING rationale. A book being sold in other languages just means the book is sold in other languages. That doesn't mean the book is notable in any of the languages, and it certainly doesn't somehow mean that the author of the book is notable. - SudoGhost 07:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • IMO, the previous post contains red herring, ad hominem, misdirection, proof by assertion, irrelevant truism, and moving the goalpost.  IMO, it conflates concepts; including majority and consensus, the lede of WP:N with the essay "ITSINTERESTING", and content-policy sourcing with reliable evidence.  The previous post does not change the evidence; that WP:N "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"; the lede of WP:N, states, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice' "; and that the topic is that of a medical doctor with years of medical-practice experience, who before his career as a mystic attracted attention with orthomolecular therapy, who with his work as a mystic has received increased world-wide attention with attendant controversy, one of more than eight authored books has been translated in six to 17 languages, and the world library system shows extensive holdings world-wide.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Yes, you've said this, repeating it doesn't make it any more valid than it was before. Cherry-picking a single wording and asserting that the article somehow meets this very specific wording does not make an article notable. "Worthy of notice" means absolutely nothing without third-party reliable sources showing that notability; your assertion of "worthy of notice" equates to WP:ITSINTERESTING and nothing more. If you think that any of these reasons you gave means he is "worthy of notice", then you'd be able to show this "notice" that reliable sources have given the subject. Your interpretation of notability is wildly out of sync with Wikipedia's, and this discussion involves Wikipedia's definition of notability, not your "overly broad to the point of being useless" definition of "worthy of notice". - SudoGhost 20:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Add argument from false premises to the previous list.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I was hoping you would do more than continue to link pointless things that you somehow think are relevant; you aren't going to insult someone into making this article notable, and if that's all you're going to do then I think this discussion has run its course. Your definition of notability is wildly different than Wikipedia's definition and has no traction of any kind in this discussion, and it seems multiple editors have disagreed with your view of notability. Unless you can provide any evidence that this article is "worthy of notice" from reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject then this article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. I have no doubt you'll continue to try to link logical fallacy articles as if they somehow explain everything (here's a hint: they don't. You're just linking things without context or explanation), but unless you can bring something new to the discussion, I think what's been said already sums up everything. - SudoGhost 23:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • The previous post introduces the unexplained word "insult", which seems particularly ill-suited to building consensus.  Unless the previous poster is dead set on turning this non-discussion into a visit to ANI, it is time to show good judgement by following the WP:TPG to comment on contributions, not contributors.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • I've responded to this on your talk page. - SudoGhost 02:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Unscintillating, All content of wikipedia, including claims of notability must be based on verifiable references. And this is said in the sentence just before the phrase you quote. And the requirement of verifiability trumps all other guidelines. I don't think your quoted phrase must repeat or rephrase the preceding one. WP:V goes everywhere without saying. 20:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs)

It is way past time to put this discussion out if its misery. It is devolving into an unproductive, repetitious argument. Unscintillating, are you really trying to claim that sources aren't necessary for notability - that it's only necessary for a subject to be "worthy of notice" in some undefined way? If that is your point (I'm not sure), that is an unsustainable argument. It is contradicted by (among other things) the "nutshell" summary of WP:N, which says "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." In the case of this man, his "years of medical-practice experience" left no trace on the world at large that I could find. His "orthomolecular therapy" book gets very few cites at Google Scholar and no independent coverage that I could find, and his claim to have originated that field appears to be as phony as his claim to have a knighthood. His only possible claim to fame is his mystical writings, of which one book may qualify as notable enough for an article (I'd have to see the article to judge), but the possible notability of his book does not transfer to him. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, the nutshell says, "We consider evidence from..." It does not say, "We only consider evidence from..."  WP:Inaccuracy#Examples of forms of evidence regarding potentially inaccurate material lists additional forms of evidence.  The list I gave above from Amazon is another example of evidence, which evidence remains unrefuted in this discussion.  The point that Amazon is not a wp:reliable source is not sourced to a wp:reliable source, so is argumentative.  Regarding your viewpoint that phony claims should weigh against notability, I think that the refutation of such claims are evidence of the topic attracting attention.  As for the suggestion that we could have an article on Power vs. Force and merge this topic to the book article, I think this suggestion has merit.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Amazon biography, it says right on the Amazon biography page "This biography was provided by the author or their representative." But your final sentence may suggest a way out of this endless discussion. if you agree with the suggestion that an article about the book might be more appropriate than an article about Hawkins, that could be the consensus we have been looking for here: Namely, delete this article, and wait for someone to create a page about Power vs. Force which could include some information about the author. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you see the self-referential contradiction in citing Amazon to argue that Amazon is not wp:reliable.  You've just presented evidence in a notability discussion that does not come from a wp:reliable source.  I expect that Amazon is big enough to have people to whom you can complain if you think that the author's material is falsified.  As for deleting the edit history, what is the point in hiding the man-months of work that the edit history represents, and leaving nothing in the encyclopedia from which to work?  Why should we hide the history that this article was once 80,000 bytes in length with 153 reflist entries?  In my keep !vote, I said that I was open to routing this article to the incubator.  How do you feel about incubate?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon says the information it is providing comes from the author or their representative. That makes it a primary source, a self-published source, a self-interested source. It means: this is not Amazon talking; this is the author talking. By adding this tagline, Amazon explicitly denies any responsibility for the accuracy of the information. Self-provided information like this can NOT be used to evaluate notability or significance, because it is not independent. Self-stated claims must be verified by independent reliable sources, and in the absence of such verification, they must be disregarded. Anybody can say anything they want about themselves in a primary source. That does not make it true in an encyclopedic sense, which requires verification. I can't believe I am having to explain this; this is Wikipedia 101.

Regarding incubation: I would prefer not to incubate this article. I don't think it should be kept in any form under its present title, mainly because of its history of multiple re-creation after deletion. This subject has wasted enormous amounts of Wikipedian time that could be better spent creating and improving content (possibly even creating an article about the book Power vs. Force). Let's delete this article, salt this title, and if anyone wants to write an article about the book, let them go ahead and see if it passes muster - that's my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for insufficient independent coverage. A few lines in a Skeptic Dictionary don't make him notable. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by barest of margins - Uzma has found some columnists from periodicals who have commented on Hawkins. To me this is independent commentary in third party sources. However, I also note that the subject matter falls in the realm of health/medicine, where standards are (justifiably) tighter. I figure we do better by including these people with analysis of their work rather than deleting them, however I am aware of how intermittently the popular press checks or critiques their sourcing, so would not lose any sleep in the slightest with a delete result (and understand fully the basis thereof). Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we went over those Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins (2nd nomination)#Columnists from periodicals and it has been discussed that they are either bloggers or journalists who repeat unverifiable claims. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 07:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the sole/current source left is probably not passing the letter of WP:BLPSPS being a skeptic newsletter. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, I'd have absolutely no problem with this article being deleted either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I appreciate the work Uzma did in finding the best sources available that mention Hawkins, but the best sources available still fall below our sourcing requirements; they are recycled blog posts, WP:ROUTINE announcements of events, trivial mentions, and so on. Power vs. Force topping the Globe and Mail 's bestseller list would normally be a piece of evidence that demonstrated notability, but I don't think it can be the only one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and in any case it would suggest notability for his book - not necessarily for him. --MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I agree with Tijfo in regards to the newsletter's unreliability in an WP:RS way, however I'm unconvinced it's a WP:BLPSPS. There's very little in independent reliable sources about this person in a biographical sense, and I agree with IRWolfie that his publications don't put him on the map for any applicable notability criteria, from WP:GNG to WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. JFHJr (㊟) 19:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• commentKeep — I apologize that my previous entry seems to have created more heat than light. I will add two links with minimal comment on my part: A recent obituary which appears to be Dr. Hawkins', [57], and a page on the Veritas Publishing site [58]. The Veritas page, while containing obvious window dressing for the purpose of selling books, ALSO contains information fellow editors may find useful for the discussion about notability; in particular, the items beneath the LIFE EVENTS OF INTEREST section...Best wishes to all, Geraldblank (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Geraldblank[reply]

Good sleuthing! It appears that the "David Ramon Hawkins" whose obituary you found is indeed the author we are discussing here. The article gives no indication that he is dead, and none of our searching had turned up that important and very recent fact. (The mortuary notice is dated September 19, 2012; no media outlet seems to have published an obit.) The middle name led me to an item at Squidoo, which provides a birthdate (June 3, 1927) which was missing from the article as well as other biographical details. However, I can't link to or use this info because Wikipedia considers Squidoo a banned site. Overall I still favor delete. This minimal obituary notice and the self-interested info from the publisher do not add to his notability. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have strong feeling that the report of his death will not be considered a reliable source either if I ask at BLP/N. And "David Ramon Hawkins died September 19, 2012. Services are private." is far from satisfying WP:GNG. The other source is his own publishing company as discussed (to death) above and on the article's talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This debate was probably the death of him.   — Jason Sosa 20:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldblank, since you have already !voted above, [59], I have converted this discussion point to a comment. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Pen: So noted; thank you. I've changed my position somewhat, inasmuch as I trust that whatever comes of this second nomination, the greatest good will prevail. I got an honest chuckle out of Jason Sosa's comment, but I also think Hawkins is getting an honest chuckle out of all of us, wherever he is now. Can't begrudge him that! Geraldblank (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Geraldblank[reply]

Wow, that is an incredibly, and sad, coincidence that he died during this debate. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not so surprising when you consider that this debate, or one like it, has been going on for months if not years. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess to some extent it demonstrates our inability to solve things in a timely manner, since the editing disputes outlive their subjects. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2012 (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.