Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methods of falling asleep

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. The article is not in perfect shape. However, as several editors pointed out, it has the potential to evolve or the content to be merged with other related articles. So I am closing this as a keep. If the article does not change much in a couple of months, feel free to renominate it. Tone 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methods of falling asleep

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

Essay/how-to. This needn't have come to AfD but the Prod was removed on day of expiry with the comment "Remove proposed deletion tag as this could have saved Michael Jackson's life &c" Hairhorn (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic is highly notable and does not seem to be well addressed in our main article on sleep which seems quite poor. There is much work to be done here and deletion will not help in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/Merge. While the information is potentially helpful, we should avoid becoming too guidebookish (on the other hand, we do have articles on lucid dreaming methods as well). The article about insomnia has a section about treatment, and the information could be merged there. There are plenty of other articles as well where this would fit, at least partially. The major problem is referencing, as this article is mostly unsourced. These sleeping knacks are something between tested facts and feasible folklore. In the event of merge or keep, it must be made sure that sources are found to support the claims. Kotiwalo (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep but seriously rework - The dePROD reason was less than ideal, but IMO the subject is notable and distinctive from insomnia treatment. I view it distinctive in that people often want to induce sleep for reasons other than insomnia. However, the article needs serious work as it is currently rather HOWTOish and also quite incomplete. There are doubtlessly numerous other non-medical methods not covered here that should be dealt with. The article also could use a better title. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This falls squarely under one of the ten things that Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)-- "2.7 Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal", and that includes guides on how to fall asleep. The usual suggestions are in here-- warm bath, glass of milk, take sleeping pills. I'll have to say that watching a movie of someone yawning is a novel idea, but Wikipedia specifically forbids "how to" guides, and there's a good reason for that in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit (or vandalize). It's not too difficult to see the consequences of a practical joke in an article about suggestions for how to lose consciousness. Mandsford (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete i am of the opinion that this subject could be notable and encyclopedic, but here is treated more like a textbook or guide than an encyclopedic overview of information related to sleep research. the only source for this article currently cited is a loosely related clinical reference text that addresses diagnosis, cause, and treatment of a broad range of sleep disorders -- which appears to address the subject from a clinical rather than a "home remedies" perspective that the article currently embodies. as of right now, this article is not sufficiently sourced. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good article review. Please comment on whether the article is capable of improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Addition of sources and improvement of the style is performed by ordinary editing, not by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with Niffweed17's opinion, and I don't believe that he or she is under an obligation to make further comments. I'll have to say that I have a real problem with comments on the order of "that's not relevant"; to me, I think that it's not much different than telling another person to shut up. While we tend to think of WP:CIVIL as applying only to profanity and direct personal attacks, it can also apply to "aggressive behaviour". It may not have been intended as a hostile comment, but that's how I would take it if it were directed to me. Mandsford (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how would you characterise your own comment? The point here is that User:Niffweed17's comments seem too focussed on the article as it is now rather than as it might be, e.g. "as of right now". This is an argument to avoid - see WP:RUBBISH - and so User:Niffweed17 is invited to address this point. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I characterize my own comment as an observation about civility. If it seems hostile, then I apologize for the tone. However it is a valid observation. Mandsford (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete the article is entirely inappropriate as it stands, including the title, which is a clear violation of "how to". to rescue, one would have to leave just the names of the few methods listed, rewrite entirely, excluding all howto language, and thenrename it. id say its easier to simply delete and start from scratch, esp. as the article as it stands is unacceptable. if it was just imperfect, or just incomplete, maybe a keep. Oh, and i just trimmed out language in the section on sleeping pills that was potentially dangerous to be here on wp, even for a few days. I think i was fully justified in doing this. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very close to WP:NOTHOWTO. No objection to verifiable information being merged to Insomnia. Location (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep Falling asleep is a major issue for a huge number of people. There is an entire range of pharmaceutical products and sleep aids addressing it. The subject is clearly notable, and concerns over content can be addressed by editing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be moved to sleep aids over the redirect as hypnotics (also called soporifics), a class of psychoactive drugs whose primary function is to induce sleep, are just one example. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ways of falling asleep != sophorics, one is a subset of the other. e.g. 'counting sheep' is a cliche method of falling asleep which has nothing to do with drugs.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep I think there's an article to be written here as this subject is of cultural significance and I beleive a reasonable history and examination could be done of it. But it needs a fair bit of re-working from where it is now. But deletion is not cleanup.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have articles dealing with the subject matter, such as Sleep disorder. The title falls foul of 'HOWTO' and there is no content worth merging. Quantpole (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, again the linked article deals primarily with a medical condition and medical treatments for it. I think an article could be made here on cultural concept of trying to get to sleep, e.g. the common cliche of counting sheep. I'm not quite sure how it could be constructed (and the current itteration certainly isn't it), but I think there is an article to be written here beyond just medical issues.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an article could be written on the 'cultural concept', but not with this content or this title. Quantpole (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so let's clean it up rather than deleting it.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is nothing salvageable from this. You could start writing an article right away at a better title, and like actually using sources and so on. There would be absolutely no loss in this being deleted. I am normally a voter on potential rather than current state, but with an article like this I see no point in trying to preserve anything. Quantpole (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote and your opinion should be discounted as you don't seem to have read the article lately - all sections are now supported by sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for educating me on AfD. You're right I hadn't relooked at the article when I was just replying. Having done so, my !vote (happier now?!) is the same. An article cobbled together from google searches from people who know nothing about the subject matter is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Quantpole (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fact it is a serious concern that Wikipedia redirects soporific to hypnotic, an article entirely about pharmaceutical drugs to make people fall asleep. This article should be moved to that title or merged with the existing article. Deleting is a horrible option that will maintain the status quo of drug pushing as the only alternative which doesn't reflect a balanced or encyclopedic approach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After some thought, I have to agree with Colonel Warden that the question is not whether this is a how-to guide, but whether it's a valid topic that has the potential to be something other than a how-to. Clearly, an article about the various methods that people have used for falling asleep is an encyclopedic topic. As with POV or lack of sourcing, the WP:NOTHOWTO objection is something that is curable. Mandsford (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been plenty of books published, and studies done, on this subject. That makes it notable. Dream Focus 02:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 02:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Scientists and doctors study this topic and write books about it all the time. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Insomnia#Treatment for insomnia. No content in need of merging. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment seems inaccurate. For example, your proposed destination does not fully explain nor provide a citation for the rebound effect of alcohol, as this article does. And it has nothing to say of other sections such as hot milk. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kotiwalo, weak delete; that, or merge any valid information to insomnia or sleep and delete the rest. This really reads like a disorganized essay, and most of the points are unsourced. Does "yawning is contagious" even sound encyclopedic? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia of sleep and dreaming says "yawning is contagious" and so, yes, it is encyclopaedic. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with the addition of a few sources, it still reads like WP:HOWTO to me......maybe a whiff of WP:SYNTH. A bunch of 2-3 sentence sections doesn't really seem notable. Nor does re-stating the blatantly obvious to make it longer. How many people can honestly say that they never thought a dark, quiet environment is a help before reading this article? And no Col Warden, I don't care if some book calling itself an encyclopedia said it. It's still repeating the blatantly obvious. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or redirect/merge to sleep. VERY well referenced article, meets all notability guidelines. Ikip (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing administrator the article has been completely rewritten since the nomination, with many additional sources.[1] Ikip (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The difference between a howto (which we don't include) and a description of techniques (which we might) is subtle, and chiefly has to do with step-by-step instructions, wording, and the like. I don't have a strong opinion on exactly what should be in this article and what should be in Insomnia#Treatment for insomnia, but at least as of now there is relatively little overlap between the two articles, so if they are to be combined I'd merge rather than just claim one should supersede the other. I also echo the sentiment that the current revision is much improved from a week ago. For example, it is now well-referenced and much more well written. Kingdon (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sleep which would benefit from improvement. I disagree that it should be merged into Insomnia: the article is laudibly attempting to conditions which may or not favour the induction of the sleep cycle (I note for example the section on Alcohol) and studies around "conditions which encourage/discourage 'good' sleep" are not limited to insomniacs. On a side note, I know AfD is not a forum for debating content but the section Methods_of_falling_asleep#Sleeping_Pills steps rather too close to the realms of medical advice as currently written. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, with provisions. Those provisions being that the article be improved rather significantly, more so than it already has. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 01:30, 2 September 2009 (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.