Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 00:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hawkins

[edit]
David R. Hawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, fails WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 00:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 01:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note and most of this "(both promotional and critical)" material was not from wp:reliable sources, hence it was cut.   — Jasonasosa 01:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:You are lead to conclude that this 85 year old author enjoy's seeing his name on Wikipedia? And how did you verify that? For someone so keen on multiple verifications of information, your unverified personal conclusions are interesting. Last month when you attempted to have the article deleted, I took the time to write to the author because that's what researchers do, they confirm information. The author was contacted by Wikipedians back in 2007 to confirm various information regarding this debate. After he assisted those who contacted him, the article was deleted. The author actually has no interest whether he is included on Wiki or not. So your astute skills in deduction are simply, incorrect.Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe you can publish something as an wp:independent source to vouch for him then, if only you were wp:reliable that is.   — Jasonasosa 18:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You seem to still miss the point of my position, I gave the author enough energy and time. I personally do not agree with his ideas regarding "kinesiolgy" and I think he is more than a tad pompous, but that is just mere opinion; he is a notable writer and lecturer and has made an impact in his areas of teaching and authorship, to what end is not for me to say.Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO; Google News Archive does not find any significant coverage by reliable sources (unless you count a Boston Globe article about the subject's marital problems). Fails WP:AUTHOR; his books are self-published and are not reviewed by any Reliable Sources. Fails WP:ACADEMIC; nothing found at Google Scholar. Basically fails all possible criteria for inclusion here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the article's log is lurid. Deletions, restorations, OTRS requests, DRVs, claims of BLP violations - going back to 2007! --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to fail notability criteria I can think of. If, by some chance, the subject ever does meet notability requirements, it can obviously be restored. And, BTW, I don't think the subject's marital problems or spouse would necessarily qualify as notable based on the Boston Globe article either. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP-The author does have notability according to wiki policy. The author is a legitimate writer and lecturer with books in 20 languages and a detailed bio on Wikipedia-German Language, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Hawkins . He has been shown to be notable during multiple forums on Wikipedia. The article has been RESTORED on several occasions. This article has been stripped by primarily one user, who has attempted to have the article deleted on multiple occasions. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: His books are all self-published, thus not notable. To date, there is not one WP:INDEPENDENT source that can verify his notability nor his credentials, other than a skeptics website: The Skeptics Dictionary: David R. Hawkins. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again your comments are unfactual and misleading. As you yourself have pointed out in previous discussions that Hawkins has been published by Hay House, who has also published Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra, both of these recognized authors have referred to Hawkins as one of their contemporaries. The author is notable. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find where Deepak Chopra refers to David R. Hawkins as a contemporary... I will change my position to keep. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)\[reply]
'Comment: 'Not my job to hunt down that for you. I suggest you do your own research, whether you agree with what he advocates or not. If you want to find that mention from Chopra, I will give you a heads up, it is in a video clip. Not worth tracking it down for Wikipedia only to have it deleted.
Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol... then as it stands, the only wp:independent source for David R. Hawkins is the skeptics website that I mentioned above and I can't even say that website is even wp:reliable. (watches this article flush down the toilet). Cheers,   — Jasonasosa 18:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then let it flush. I really think that is all you really want is to do everything possible to see that the article be removed, whether he is actually notable or not; this is just some bias you have either against the author or me personally. The man is a serious teacher and lecturer, though undeniably controversial, who is respected and noticed among a segment of the populous and among his peers, and criticized and scoffed at by skeptics. Either way he is notable He personally nor any of his staff attempted to have this article here on English Wiki kept intact, so it is not as you describe "self-promotional". Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could be true that this article is not self-promotional, but that was very hard to tell when we had his whole life story and knighthood without any proper references. I have nothing against you... it seems you are taking this way more personal, especially with you blasting me at User talk:Dougweller's page. And you just saying that he is notable isn't going to cut it. The only way you can save this page, even if its a keep (without being gutted), is if you can cough up some wp:reliable material. However, in accordance with WP:TE, I am not "demanding" anything... I am just saying for the sake of the page. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting further still, why then do you keep claiming that the article is self-promotion, as one of your bases and reasons for requesting deletion if you also concede that is possibly not a truthful statement? I have no emotion towards your desire to delete the page. I do find it disturbing, when you say to me that 'everything I say is null and void' based on some contention you have with something else I said about this articles removal. I personally think you have too much negative bias regarding the article to be very clear about it. This is obvious by your finding various reasons to remove virtually all information from the piece, who I might add a lot of non-bias persons contributed to in making the article balanced, then not to mention your numerous attempts to have the article deleted, as we can attest because here we are one more time at your behest. Again, I state, I do not care for the author nor the article but it has been repeated clear through the years the man is notable and the article deserves the mention here as such. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:06, August 2012 (UTC)
Addendum Also, calling you out about the way you have mishandled this article as someone who has "vandalized", is not "blasting you". It is obvious from the article's history that you have systematically removed the bulk of the information and requested, once again that it be deleted. You have even been called out by others that this was inappropriate action, in regards to this article, in the way you have gone about it. This goes beyond simple obligation you feel towards Wikipedia, this appears to be more out of some ill-contentedness or malice and that is why I address this as 'vandalism' in quotes. Possibly, you should leave this article alone and let others deal with it. I think you simply may be misinformed and just can't concede that the man has notability, both respect and disdain, in his field. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge I do not recall being called out for my edits to this article by other editors... only that I botched up the speedy deletion tags. If you have proof otherwise, please link me. Also, I can admit when I am wrong, if it is true that the article is not self-promo, a point that was based on my personal deduction of which I clearly stated before. There are other wikieditors who shed light with wp:civility that the inclusion of the Skeptic website in the article may not hold a case for self-promotion. I am also considering your statements, based on wp:goodfaith that perhaps you did have dialogue with Hawkins who may, according to your words, expressed "no interest whether he is included on Wiki or not." Therefore, at present, I deduce that the article being self-promotional is inconclusive. However, I still stand behind delete, due to wp:nn and wp:fringe and as MelanieN (talk · contribs) brought out, it fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and definitely, by far, FAILS WP:ACADEMIC. Thanks   — Jasonasosa 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Information you requested After tagging the article for deletion, you deleted 1,888 characters; FormerIP specifically names you and states that your action is not appropriate then undoes your action, to which you promptly reverse the reversal and justify yourself leaving the previous article text out. 19:19, 13 August 2012‎ FormerIP (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,667 bytes) (+1,888)‎ . . (Undid revision 507253314 by 'Jasonasosa This isn't appropriate'. Let your speedy request just run its course.). Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To set the record straight, here is the history of what happened:
1 First attempt to delete article (botched up placement of tag):
10:14, 13 July 2012‎ Jasonasosa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,478 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (sorry, had wrong tag... this should be the right one.... speedy deletion: self promotional) (undo)
2 Attempt denied; Tagged wrong.
13:00, 13 July 2012‎ Nyttend (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,376 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Spam does not call its subject pseudoscience) (undo)
3 Second attempt to delete article:
18:36, 13 August 2012‎ Jasonasosa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,878 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (somehow I messed this up the first time... Hopefully this will get to an admin now.
4 Attempt denied.
18:43, 13 August 2012‎ Panyd (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,867 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Very much not G11. Looks rather like it's duplicating the applied kinestheology article though) (undo)
5 Consulted Dougweller (talk · contribs)
User talk:Dougweller/Archive 24#Deletion template clarified what I was doing wrong. Speedy deletions closed.
6 Edited article: Removed wp:unsourced material
(cur | prev) 19:10, 13 August 2012‎ Jasonasosa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,779 bytes) (-1,888)‎ . . (removed redundant material out of wp:scope and any wp:unsourced material) (undo)
7 My traditional edits were reverted, because according to FormerIP (talk · contribs), he was waiting on a speedy request that had already been closed by Panyd (talk · contribs)
19:19, 13 August 2012‎ FormerIP (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,667 bytes) (+1,888)‎ . . (Undid revision 507253314 by Jasonasosa This isn't appropriate. Let your speedy request just run its course.) (undo)
8 Reverted for uncalled for revert by FormerIP when Speedy deletions were closed.
19:42, 13 August 2012‎ Jasonasosa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,779 bytes) (-1,888)‎ . . (Undid revision 507254639 by FormerIP (talk) It is appropriate... because the speedy already ran the course when it was reverted.. now I'm improving this article by removing redundant wp:unsourced m) (undo)
9 Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) reopens the case for a consensus to delete
00:28, 14 August 2012‎ Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,172 bytes) (+393)‎ . . (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins. (TW)) (undo)
And that is what happened. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 22:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Again, the article was "inappropriately" handled during the deletion process and it has been noted, despite your personal justifications, it has certainly lacked couth in the process, but that is your choice. You are simply motivated to have the article removed because you are of the opinion that he does not meet your personal guidelines. As you aware Jason, many of the policies here on Wiki are rather arbitrary and somewhat convoluted; you can find dozens of reason to have most any article sufficiently edited down or removed, it is just the nature of an over-developed bureaucracy. Repeated consensus has been to continue to have this article reinstated.Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW commenting on the remark above: I see from the page log that the article has been restored at least three times, but none of those restorations resulted from a discussion or consensus process. --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Your rather alarmest opinions of communications with others from somewhat of a "tattling tone" are noted, there is no hysteria here regardless of your comments or perspective. It is an open and public forum and anyone may communicate with whom they choose, that is why it is the way it is set up, to engage people regarding topics. Jason and I have been having this spar for sometime now about this article. I will leave it at that. Regardless I will get back some facts, here is the cover of the front of the 1995 Edition Power vs Force you might notice the notation from Wayne Dyer. The author Hawkins is notable, among his peers. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Melanie, I believe if you go back further, it is has been deleted more than three times. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If Iconoclast.horizon is trying to indicate that the notability of the subject can be based on a cover blurb of one of his books by another individual, I very sincerely urge him to read the notability guidelines more clearly, because I have never seen any indication that such promotional material qualifies to establish notability. Also, based on the information presented above, I think it may well be reasonable to salt the article, until and unless WP:BURDEN is met to establish notability according to wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sadly, a promotional cover blurb in no way even comes close to doing so. John Carter (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, I am afraid you are mistaken in that regard, I am not basing the notability on a simple blurb. Its just one point among dozens that have been made regarding this individual over time. Simply because you do not know who he is does not mean he does not meet the criteria, even if multiple levels of credibility are in question. He is obviously notable among his peers. Also, when the term "kinesiology" is mentioned he is generally the first person brought up in context with that fringe concept and he is associated with that work. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then produce those sources which meet WP:RS requirements as per WP:BURDEN, as is required. For all the almost obsessive interest you have displayed in this single article, it is remarkable that, despite your repeated claims to notability, few if any that meet WP:RS have been produced. I myself went over the material on the Highbeam Research site before my first comment, and found nothing that would indicate to me that the subject meets notability. I am sorry that one editor seems to believe that simply asserting things without evidence is of any use in these discussions, but it is not. Unfounded allegations of "obviously" are not and never have been sufficient, reliable sources as per WP:RS that clearly establish notability as per the relevant notability guidelines are. To date, so far as I can see, such have not been produced. John Carter 23:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SEE PREVIOUS NOTES: I personally no longer wish to be a contributor to the article as it has been hashed in English Wiki to no end, the process at the moment is moot. The principle issue here is that the man is notable and not self-promoting on Wikipedia (as has been claimed repeatedly here). Personally, I think the man is self-aggrandizing and extremely speculative but he is notable. If you wish to lean more and speak German try German Wiki-entry for more information: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Hawkins Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak German... but I can pretty much see, blaitantly, that there is no reference section. Does the German wiki follow the same protocols as the English? I think we should mark that page for deletion too because there isn't a single reference on that page!   — Jasonasosa 23:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think you should consider leaving the German project to the German speakers but that is just how I see it. And John Carter calls me obsessive! I don't have a contention with Dr. Hawkins; he has his place and those people who follow, believe and promote his work. He borders a lot of gray areas with spirituality, quasi-science and self-aggrandizement, etc. but that is only known because, though difficult to confirm, the information is out there in a number of ways, he is still notable. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jason, as I previously stated, I do not care about the article or the man. As you pointed out on the articles talk page, it sounds to me that you are failing to understand the difference in "promoting him" and defending his somewhat ominous notability. I have made no attempt to promote the man or his ideas, only be balanced in the delivery of who he is and what he does out in the world. He has gained in popularity in recent years and people who run across his work, particularly Power vs. Force, should be made aware that his other concepts are met with a great deal of skepticism. People very often turn to Wikipedia for just this kind of information to understand such people as Dr. Hawkins. Wiki is the proper forum for that. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 00:04, 21 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_R._Hawkins&oldid=1223520654"