Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard R. Brand

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 no consensus because 6 editors wanted to keep and 7 wanted to delete it.

Okay that's not really why, but those are the rough totals, i.e. a split between participants, and too few participants for such an incredibly long discussion. There were a number of valid points made by editors on both sides with respect to notability.

I think there's a reason this AfD sat around for several days without being closed, aside from it being really long, namely that there's no good way to "read" it given the nature of the discussion. One editor made 61 edits to this page and contributed a great deal of verbiage, while his main interlocutor contributed 25 and also said a bunch of stuff. This is not to mention the exchanges on Talk:Leonard R. Brand which are related to the discussion here (and which I read a lot of but most certainly did not read in total because, uhh, I just couldn't). That's all well and good and I don't doubt the good intentions of folks involved in the discussion, but for as long as this fiksybusiness is, there are few real participants, and that's a major problem given the large amount of side chatter and the lack of agreement as to the outcome.

So I see this as "no consensus" not so much because of the !vote totals or even the arguments--though that's part of it--but because this AfD just didn't unfold in a way that is conducive to coming to any sort of Wiki-style consensus. For now we default to keep due to the lack of consensus, but I think the following should really, really, really happen going forward:

  1. Open a new AfD in a few months or so to revisit the matter (unless no one wants to, which is also quite fine).
  2. The primary participants here--you know who you are--who have flooded this AfD and the article with edits need to restrain themselves next time around.
  3. Discussion should be focused tightly on the quality of the sources and the specifics of the notability policies as applied to this person.
  4. The points about how WP:FRINGE relates to WP:PROF, made by Nsk92, need to be considered.
  5. Obviously keep working on the article in the meantime.

Basically this is a "no consensus, let's try again later" close. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard R. Brand

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

Minor creationist and Seventh Day Adventist-affiliated academic. Very little third party coverage, and what there is is almost solely on the subject of his (now long-discredited) Coconino Sandstone claims -- so this would appear to be WP:BLP1E and if considered worth keeping, could be merged into Flood geology. Any pretensions to WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR would appear to rest solely on (narrow and as yet unsubstantiated) claims of influence within SDA academia. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Topic is is one of the few to directly link creationism advocacy with a relevant program of mainstream (peer-reviewed) scientific research. That research has ~80 peer-citations, and in particular there have been numerous articles (in high profile journals including Nature) solely on a concept introduced by the topic (pertaining to an otherwise as-yet unexplained feature of some fossil tracks). Unlike most other uni. professors, there have been published books written by the topic for wider audiences. The topic's theological writings are also independently mentioned by other published religious literature (e.g., [1]). Seems to satisfy the professor test. Cesiumfrog (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Website? (It is an except of a published book. Similarly [2] and [3] substantiate his having presence in the religious sphere.) Long discredited and widely debunked? That's not the impression I get (see e.g., Geology Today v.8 iss.3 p.78–79 May 1992, or [4], or [5], or Nature 355:110 9 Jan. 1992) but I'm interested to see your sources. Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics_and_educators-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a total of 80 or 100 citations for his work and mention of it on some (fellow conservative SDA) minister's website does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Breathlessly describing Brand's claims as "otherwise as-yet unexplained" does not alter the fact that his claims [claims of underwater footprints] have been widely debunked as failing to explain far more than they explain. Nor does unsubstantiated claims of noteworthiness and notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If his claims have been widely debunked, that would tend to imply notability, but sources are needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Another Comment: Brand is the department chair for Loma Linda University's Earth and Biological Sciences department. His contribution to biology and paleontology is respected, though minor, compared to the leaders in those fields. However, at the intersection of Religion and Science, his contribution to the discussion is notable. He is a creationist and a peer-reviewed paleo-biologist with solid field experience. This combination makes him a notable figure among creationists and, in particular, among Seventh-day Adventists. For the 12 million+ Adventists when Brand speaks on science and religion, they generally consider what he says important. His notability as a paleo-biologist is weak. His notability as a young-earth creationist paleo-biologist is strong, almost unmatched. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such claims need sourcing to qualify for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Department chair: [6]. Contribution to creation-evolution debate: some sources in article. Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, department chair, particularly of a fairly small sectarian university, does not meet WP:PROF (sourced or not). What is needed is sourcing for claims for notability -- such as your "intersection of Religion and Science" claim. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 00:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hrafn wrote "'Sectarian' means on the fringes of academia, not in the forefront -- particularly in the field of science." To be notable, it is not necessary for a person to be in the forefront, though it certainly makes notability easier to establish. Take Giberson as an example. He is a Nazarene, works at a Nazarene college, has a specialty in physics and theology, and yet he seems quite regarded by the science community and various faith communities. Most of the best universities were 'sectarian' when they began. Considering the SDA church's stance on Creation vs Evolution, it is notable that they have some significantly respectable scientists. They have specialists in many different areas of science, but only a few respected for their geological and paleobiological field science. A cutting edge scientist usually ends up in the ivy league but there are others who turn down offers so they can serve the sectarian institution. We call that being mission-minded. Who knows whether Brand has had offers from such schools? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Loma Linda University, while relatively small (about 3,500 students) is a highly respected university that's over a century old and being the Chairman of a department there is significant. It being a "sectarian" university has nothing to do with the notability of this person just as a department Chairperson of the Jesuit Georgetown University shouldn't be considered non-notable just because it's "sectarian." --Oakshade (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please offer substantiation for the claim that it is "highly respected", and particularly that it is respected for its science. "Sectarian" means on the fringes of academia, not in the forefront -- particularly in the field of science, and means better known for its devoutness than for its cutting-edge scholarship. Being the head of a science department at a small, sectarian university would in most instances mean that you are not a notable scientist. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(And no, passing mention by Giberson or Alston do not meet that.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 00:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hrafn, the size of the institution or whether it is private, parochial, or public is really not a measure of reputation, or of ability to do cutting-edge scholarship. Perhaps a related issue is money. Some of the budgets for the biology departments of the huge universities would dwarf Loma Linda University's whole budget for the institution. Recall the 160th ranking of the school? The ranking was based on a 4.0 scale. The 21 universities ranked at 160th all received a 2.4 for their biology departments. I don't think any of us would call that highly respected. Loma Linda made the list, it is the only biology department of an Adventist institution to do so. Andrews University was ranked 191 overall, but not for its biology department in particular. So only Loma Linda makes the list. Why? I suggest it is because of Brand's leadership. If this article stays in existence long enough, I plan to demonstrate what makes Brand's department such a notable one. In an organization the two go together. The leader gets the credit, or the blame. Some people seem to have a stereotypical view which casts religion and science as incompatible. As Ecklund discovered, a significant minority of scientists disagree. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The abundance of scholarly peer-review and citations of this person as indicated by DonaldRichardSands and Cesiumfrog does indicate the passing of WP:PROF. While many might not agree with him, controversial opinions and possibly discredited theories is not a basis of deleting a biography.--Oakshade (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there's been some good faith attempts to build the article up in recent hours, but too much of it has been on the basis of very slim pickings (bare mentions, in one case in an iUniverse, and thus self-published, source). I would therefore recommend that commentators check the sources (and their publisher) as part of their evaluation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, it is pleasant to see good faith attempts noted. Re: iUniverse, I wondered about it, but went ahead and used it anyway. Hrafn pointed out its self-published nature. The iUniverse citation has been removed. I agree that it will help for anyone who can to double-check the sources cited in the article. Lately, I have been including what seem to be evidence of some level of notability. As I have studied further it seems that both sides of the Creationist-Naturalistic divide recognize Brand's civil manners. I find Martin Lockley's assessment of Brand to be quite refreshing. He strongly disagrees with Brand's conclusions but applauds his attitude. Lockley would make a good Wikipedian. lol DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: less good faith can be imputed to larding up the article with such trivia as the fact that an Adventist newsletter reports that he once received a $50 book prize and with the pseudoscientific rag Creation, the only third-party source for his purported "scientific" endevours in the field of Taphonomy. Leave aside the bare mentions and the affiliated sources, and all that is left is Lockley (whose coverage of Brand is restricted to a single book and the Coconino Sandstone footprint claims contained therein -- hardly the basis for a well-rounded biography). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC) (Parenthetically, how many articles on prominent scientists have so little to say that they stoop to discussing what courses they are currently teaching? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC) )[reply]
    A bit of scratching around reveals that Brand's department ranks only 160th among US Biology departments -- not exactly "highly respected", and offering little prominence to its chairman. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia article Higher education in the United States says: "According to UNESCO the US has the second largest number of higher education institutions in the world, with a total of 5,758, an average of more than 115 per state... The U.S. Department of Education shows 4,861 colleges and universities." Depending on how many of these have a biology department, 160th can be quite notable. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the ranking of universities quite interesting. Is Loma Linda's Biology Department respectable, highly regarded, or a diploma mill level? The report Hrafn refers to (I think) lists 21 university biology departments at the 160th rank. Here is the list:
Albany Medical College,  Drexel University (College of Medicine), Florida Institute of Technology, Florida International University, Georgia State University, Loma Linda University, Louisiana State University School of Medicine--Shreveport, Northern Arizona University, Ohio University, Oklahoma State University, Southern Methodist University, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, SUNY Upstate Medical Center, University at Albany--SUNY, University of Houston, University of Massachusetts--Boston, University of Mississippi Medical Center, University of New Hampshire, University of South Carolina, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Wright State University 
Kind of interesting. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we use this ranking, it is probably more accurate to describe Loma Linda Univeristy's Biology Department as respectable rather than highly respectable. The rankings allow a person to show their own subtle biases regarding the matter. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of us are experts, or even knowledgeable, on what makes 160th notable or not. My question remains. How many departments of biology are there in the United States, and more importantly, what is the significance of being 160th? How many really large universities are there with tens of thousands of students? Perhaps a more revealing fact would be how has the university's accrediting agency rated them? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources currently in the article, the only one that is useful in determining notablility is Numbers, and Brand rates only a footnote in that. Good sources include in-depth news stories in nationwide independent media, or substantial mention in widely read academic reviews on creationism or paleontology. Sorry, but from what I could find on the internet, it seems this guy is in no way prominent enough in either the scientific community or the creationist community to warrant inclusion on WP. See WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forum Shopping: I have identified in bold highlights so those not interested in my lengthy section can move on to other things. Also, if an admin considers this analysis inappropriate for this AfD page, they are welcome to suggest where I should discuss this, or delete the whole thing. However, and I repeat, I believe that the person doing any kind of changing of this should be an admin. (I like the admin nomination process. I think it provides Wikipedia a way to develop its own 'professionals'.)
  • Forum Shopping cont. When I placed the notice, I was not aware of the WP concept of forum shopping. So, I have briefly studied about it. I can see how this notice can be viewed that way. However, when I sought information on notability on the notability discussion board, I mentioned the Brand article. I thought that those involved would consider it unfair if they were not advised of my mentioning it. So, I have wondered, How do you properly advise fellow editors when they are discussed on another forum? Do I mention it on their talk pages? Where is the line between that and canvassing. Of course, this is an AfD discussion. It is not necessarily a notability or forum shopping discussion. Wikipedia rules can be confusing. Don't get me wrong. I like the free encyclopedia concept and the Wikipedia notion of rules, guidelines, and ignore all rules. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forum Shopping cont. I come from a faith background where 'the law' is very important. The merciless application of law has been a societal problem for thousands of years. Some call it legalism. Some want rules which can be applied like a logical science. Others are more flexible. In my faith community we have this spectrum of attitude toward law. It is normal in society. Wikipedia has certain policies which touch on its own law such as AGF and IAR. As a reformed legalist, I find Wikipedia's application of its own rules interesting. (I have even discovered the Wikipedia Rule Book.)DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forum Shopping, concluded. Consider this "If a dispute is in a particular topic area or concerns the application of a particular policy or guideline, posting a request to the noticeboard may attract people with some experience in that area." This is a quote from Wikipedia's Consensus page. (Another important WP concept). My notice was the reverse of this. Rather than inviting those reading the Notability noticeboard about our discussion here, I began a discussion there and, out of courtesy to those here, told them about my discussion there. Now if everyone can Assume Good Faith the problem can be worked through. Some kindly editor can educate me to the process and since we both assume good faith in the other, the misunderstanding gets resolved. One editor deleted my new section on the notability notice board. I restored it. He then accused me of intellectual dishonesty. The other editor put a strike out line through my notice here. Now, if both editors practiced AGF they would have brought my 'violation' of policy to my attention in an AGF attitude and the problem would have been resolved and we would all be friends, perhaps. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Hrafn is a rabid anti-creationist and anti-christian whose agenda is to eliminate anything that even hints at a NPOV on creationism and Christianity. He twists otherwise good WP policy to force his agenda and threaten his opposers. He is a bully. 75.244.91.121 (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)— 75.244.91.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment I consider this input by 75.244.91.121 an illustration as to why unregistered users should not be allowed to take part in these discussions. Re: Hrafn, he certainly can defend himself, but I have worked quite intensely with him and have found his input to be helpful. His understanding of Wikipedia rules and how to correctly apply them is impressive. As we have worked together on the Brand article and on other articles in the past, Hrafn's critical input has been necessary and productive. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citability in GScholar is pretty meager, with top cited paper having a measly 39 hits. Much much less than we ordinarily require for satisfying WP:PROF#C1. Moreover, WP:PROF makes it clear that WP:FRINGE and pseudoscience cases are generally to be routed through WP:BIO and there is even less evidence that the subject passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the reasons stated by DonaldRichardSands, Cesiumfrog, Fountainviewkid, Oakshade, and Hrafn, who pointed out that one of Brand's theories had been widely debunked (if widely debunked, then widely noted, therefore indicating NOTABILITY). Also because the article keeps improving in sources and bolstering the notability of the subject. And, finally, because the motives of some commenting here are not to improve Wikipedia by exposing readers to a range of competing ideas but to suppress, by a hateful deletionism, ideas that don't happen to conform to their personal POV. --Kenatipo speak! 03:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore: I just did the simple Google search by clicking on the link above, "Leonard R. Brand" -wikipedia. The man gets 544,000 hits. This number alone moots all other notability discussion, so why are we having it? --Kenatipo speak! 17:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the theories had been widely debunked then that would indeed contribute to notability. Unfortunately, the sources for the wide debunking do not seem to be sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I tried so hard to AGF. Do you mean Hrafn was talking through his hat? My belief in Wikipedia is dashed! --Kenatipo speak! 03:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such fine parsing of my every word. I meant "widely" relative to the (relatively meagre) coverage Brand's Coconino claims received -- not that a condemnation of his claims was posted on the noticeboard of every Geology department in the world. In any case, this very narrow coverage on a single issue could easily be accomodated, per WP:BLP1E, in Flood geology -- as I suggested in my nomination. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the real reason you want this article deleted, Hrafn? --Kenatipo speak! 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all, it is good to see some dialogue regarding this deletion nomination. We have only just begun developing the article. Brand is one of the few Creationists who has been noted and quoted by authors writing on the Creationist movement. The book of naturalistic scientist Martin Lockley, a specialist in track fossils, has been especially interesting. Brand is seldom criticized for his scientific methods, or creative scientific questioning, just his conclusions. This collegial treatment of Brand by Lockley, Hoope, Toumey (still to come), Young, Stearley, Giberson and Yerxa is impressive, and, IMO, notable. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kenatipo: the real reason that I nominated this article for deletion is ... deathly hush ... I'm a longstanding regular on WP:WikiProject Creationism. What were you expecting? That I'd admit to membership in the Evil Atheist Cabel™? As such, I very regularly create, expand, rewrite, merge or nominate for deletion articles in this field. I am for example the predominate author of George McCready Price and Geoscience Research Institute, and responsible for the current structure of Creation–evolution controversy (one of my first projects within Wikipedia). Take a look at the edit history of just about any article on creationism or a creationist and you'll most probably find that I have edited it at some stage -- take a look at the edit history of its talkpage and you'll most probably find that I was the one who rated it for the Wikiproject. I'm afraid you've failed to even insult me with your veiled accusation -- yes, I'm simply laughing at you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't figure you for a member of the Evil Atheist Orthography Club, trade-marked or otherwise. Are you sure you didn't mean Deletionism instead of Creationism? I'm laughing at you, too. --Kenatipo speak! 01:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (i) I would like to apologise for mis-speaking above. I said "his [Brand's] claims" had been widely debunked. It would be more accurate to state that it is 'claims of underwater creation of the Coconino Sandstone footprints' generally that have been debunked, as (a) Brand isn't the only one making them (Andrew A. Snelling and Steven A. Austin have also made them independently) & (b) not all of the debunking will necessarily be addressed at them specifically, as opposed to the claims generally. TalkOrigins Archive lists the following sources (here and here) as controverting these claims:
    1. Lockley, M. G., 1992. Comment and reply on "Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin" Geology 20(7): 666-667.
    2. Lockley, M. and A. P. Hunt, 1995. Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States. New York: Columbia University Press.
    3. Loope, D. B., 1992. Comment and reply on "Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin" Geology 20(7): 667-668.
    4. Schur, Chris, 2000. Trace fossils and sedimentary structures: The Permian Coconino sandstone. http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/cocotr.html[full citation needed]
    5. Hunter, R. E., 1977. Basic types of stratification in small eolian dunes. Sedimentology 24: 361-387.
    6. McKee, E. D., 1979. A study of global sand seas: Ancient sandstones considered to be eolian. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1052, Reston, VA: USGS.
    7. Reineck, H.-E. and I. B. Singh, 1980. Depositional Sedimentary Environments, 2nd ed. Berlin: Spinger-Verlag.
As far as I know, the first three sources do specifically discuss Brand. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just did the simple Google search by clicking on the link above, "Leonard R. Brand" -wikipedia. The man gets 544,000 hits. This number alone moots all other notability discussion, so why are we having it? --Kenatipo speak! 17:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Complete BOLLOCKS. Google counts do not establish notability. Reliable third-party sources do. And so far, I seen none except Numbers, who gives Brand only a passing mention in a footnote. Furthermore, if I follow the Google hits out to the end, there are only 180 hits. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're having it because WP:GOOGLEHITS is widely acknowledged as a really lousy argument -- so only "moots" itself. I would also point out that the first hits that your search generates are to www.rareresource.com (WP:CIRCULAR) & www.llu.edu (Brand's employer). "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" this really really ain't. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, never let common sense interfere with your agenda, I always say. (And, don't forget your rabies shots!) --Kenatipo speak! 18:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bald assertions of "common sense" generally mean that you lack an actual argument -- and have about as much impact as replacing the text in question with an equal number of exclamation marks. See WP:NOCOMMON. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia needs is a rule that prevents people from attempting to delete articles when the motivation to delete is their own POV, not any intention to improve the encyclopedia -- especially when the article is in the gray area of notability, like this one may be. I'm an inclusionist. Borderline cases, like this one, should default to KEEP. (Such a rule would certainly give you much more time to be doing something productive). --Kenatipo speak! 16:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kenatipo, thanks for your continued interest in this discussion. Regarding your concern re: motivation to delete is their own POV. My question would be how does a person know the motivation of someone else? I have had my motivation misunderstood here. The WP idea of AGF has to do with judging motives. The AGF guidelines say, "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." Lately, I have begun to think of certain tough-minded editors as dutch uncles, though probably most of them are younger than I am. :) A WP dutch uncle is an editor who issues frank, harsh, and severe comments and criticism to educate, encourage, or admonish another editor. Maybe we should start a page where we recommend this as a formal WP concept. The Dutch Uncle concept helps to transform hurt feelings into positive regard. We all find harsh or severe criticism of our work difficult. My mother was a tough-talking, perhaps severe, critic within her faith community. Some loved her for it, others seemed to hate her. She had a cat. One day it died. She cried quietly, just noticeable tears. I saw her tender compassionate side. After that, I advised her to stay involved with her critics because sooner or later they too would see her compassionate side. We need to practice this here at Wikipedia. It works. Brand is a role model for this Assume Good Faith principle. The literature, secondary sources and his own writings, establish this. This is one of the things that make Brand a notable person. Again, thanks for your input, it helps the process. Cheers. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having read the article, there is nothing that establishes Brand's notability. His field is not unique, nor is his philosophy. For such a "notable" person, his biography is paltry, and there should be much more discussion of his work if that avenue was notable. MSJapan (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi MSJapan, welcome to the discussion. I have been the principal editor since the article was nominated for deletion on August 4th. Hrafn has been a constant adviser and dutch uncle critic. I got involved after reading a note left on a project page. WP has a spectrum of notability compliance, it seems. WP Consensus is built by discussion which, for me includes comparisons. Three articles have caught my attention regarding notability: 1826 Miller (notability seems low), Geography of Italy (no reference section; notability seems to be inherent even though WP does not like that notion), and Karl W. Giberson (an impressive short article with established notability). Giberson is involved in the Creation-Evolution controversy, as member of the Nazarene church. The Nazarene church has embraced mainline Geology whereas Brand's Seventh-day Adventist Church has moved the other way. One of Giberson's students did some early work on the article. Giberson, as a WP editor, corrected some of information himself in an open and responsible manner: On October 21, 2006, he wrote: "(I am updating and enlarging a bio of myself that was written by one of my students. I have removed trivial information and added more appropriate content.)" His article asserts more evidence for notability than Brand's, but it is not very thorough in its linking assertions to citations. His accomplishments are impressive. His specialty is physics and theology. As a scientist, Brand is more notable. As a Creationist, Giberson is far more notable. It is like comparing apples and oranges. I believe that Brand's article has already established enough notability for the article to be kept. There is much more to do. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comparison of the Leonard R. Brand article on August 4 with that on August 9

Here is what the article looked like when it was first nominated for deletion on August 4, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonard_R._Brand&diff=442966291&oldid=442862123

Of course, here is what it looks like, today: Leonard R. Brand

Some informal statistics:

  1. There have been over 200 edits in the last six days.
  2. On August 4, the text count for the body of the article, including the lead = about 150 words
  3. On August 9, the text count for the body of the article, including the lead = about 950 words
  4. The Selected Bibliography section has not changed. It has 9 entries.
  5. The See Also section entries have changed from 1 to 3.
  6. On August 4, the list of references = 5.
  7. On August 9, the list of references = 21
  8. Six editors have contributed to the article since its nomination and two bots.
  9. Of the six, two have contributed the vast majority of the edits.
  10. Of the two most active editors, one has added most of the new material to the article while the other has provided critical review and advice.

These are just the basics.

Some reflection on the data:

> Edit count includes everything including minor edits
> Word count importance depends on the quality of the writing.
> The references section count depends on the quality of the sources included.
> The text is being actively edited currently.

Disclosure: I have also placed this info on a section in the Leonard R. Brand article's talk page.

End of Comparison.

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, in 5 days you have done ABSLUTELY NOTHING to establish the notablity of the subject of the article. NOTHING AT ALL. There are still exactly ZERO reliable independent sources that establish notablity, and that is the ONLY number that counts here on AfD. The only notable things you did manage to do was make a complete mess of this AfD page and shoot yourself in the foot with your forum shopping. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dominus, we disagree again. The process continues. It will be interesting to see what the responsible admin will decide. It has been quite a ride. I have learned lots about Wikipedia: its rules, culture, etc. Wikipedia's 'social life' has gotten me through many a long night. Hrafn, has been especially helpful, like a tough-talking dutch uncle. I have learned lots about Brand and have been surprised at the positive words that Creationists and Naturalistic Scientists have expressed for him. I have learned about some impressive scientists, and other academics, and have become more acquainted with others: Lockley, Hoope, Numbers, Ecklund, Young, Stearley, Giberson and Yerxa. These have all been cited in the Leonard R. Brand article. You are right, there is still more to do. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have enjoyed comparing 'Keep' decisions. Two articles of interest to me are: 1826 Miller (an asteroid) and the Geography of Italy which has no reference section or any cited references. When I look over other articles, our discussion here takes on new meaning and perspective. Remember that Wikipedia is a consensus building community. Some here speak like they are commanders of others. They seem to think that stern warnings and a dominating stance is what poor souls like me need. Don't get me wrong, I really learn quickly when given stern-talking tough love. I even learn from those who find me really annoying as long as they tell me why I annoy them. :( DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of my most interesting recent discoveries is that Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Harmonious Editing Club. I looked over their short list principles, seven in all, and realized that I have not been keeping to some of them. So, I joined up. I figure that being a member will help me keep on my toes, so to speak. It might even help me keep from shooting myself in the foot in the future. There are 227 members currently. I haven't looked carefully. Maybe you are already a member. If not, come along. Well, even if you don't join, let's agree to be respectful of each other, even when we disagree. Leonard R. Brand is a good role model for this, even if it is determined that he is not notable. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies for opining on the larger world of Wikipedia. But, this AfD process needs some reflection. Maybe we need to have a subpage where we can relax and just enjoy talking about what we do. I think this kind of reflective dialogue is good for all of us. I find it therapeutic. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I first saw this AFD links at the Notability noticeboard and have been watching with interest since. I don't have a dog in the fight from a theological/political/philosophical perspective, I'm just looking at it based on the merits of the article, and I'm afraid that I don't think this subject is notable. Most of the existing sources are problematic for various reasons. 5 of the 21 sources are Brand works, whereas the article should be based primarily on secondary sources. And of the secondary sources used, it some seem to only mention Brand briefly and in passing (like the Ronald Numbers source), or are brief mentions of arguably trivial information (like this and this, which only mention him in brief sentences, and in my view fails WP:GNG because even if the sources are reliable, they don't constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources"). Many sources are used not about Brand but about how people feel about views that he holds (like the Ecklund source). Some are clearly not reliable sources, like this blurb for his book or this source, which doesn't discuss him in depth anyway. Perhaps more importantly, I found practically nothing about Brand on my searches in Lexis Nexis, Newsbank or Google News and, if he were notable, it wouldn't be so difficult to find those sources. — Hunter Kahn 00:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Hunter Kahn, after looking over your user page, I am impressed with the list of your accomplishments. And, your assessment is appreciated and insightful. I still have set my sights on working to save this article, so obviously we will disagree, but I agree with much of what you say, unfortunately. :) The biographical citations have not been included to establish notability, but rather to strengthen the story of Brand. Does every citation have to establish notability? Anyway, I appreciate your involvement. Come again. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Notability
In brief: Brand is notable because he moves in both Creationist and Scientific circles and is accomplished and well-regarded by both. His uniqueness along with adequate mention of him in secondary sources makes him notable.
Wikipedia Consensus building is a process of thinking together. In this thinking, all sorts of circumstances arise. Consider Leonard R. Brand. From all I have read about him, he is a quiet unassuming scientist who does respected science, has written a book attempting to help his fellow Christians think more scientifically. He is welcomed as a speaker at meetings wherever he goes among the creationist community. He is spoken of respectfully by all the scientists who have written about him. These same scientists admire his attitude of geniality as do the creationists who talk about him. I challenge anyone reading this to find one criticism leveled against Brand's manners or his scientific methods. Yes, both scientists and creationists disagree with him, but they speak kindly of him. Now, concerning his notability. How many people are respected and practitioners in both communities? Who else is doing active research and is a YEC as well? All of these facts, demonstrated in the secondary sources, show notability. Why shouldn't Wikipedia have an article on this person. Secondary sources establish his notability. It has been said that it is so difficult to establish Brand's notability because he is not a confrontationalist, and thus those who study the controversy don't know about him because he is quietly going about his business of doing science and teaching Creationist how to more scientific. It has been mentioned that Loma Linda University's Biology Department ranks 160th along with 21 other universities, such as Georgia State. How did Loma Linda University attain this status? It is the only Seventh-day Adventist University Biology Department to even make the list. Who is the head of that noteworthy department? Brand is. I suggest to you, that his leadership as department chair has made it so that Loma Linda University has risen to being included on this list. One final thought, Brand is the member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and is one of their foremost researching scientist authors. The SDA Church has well over 10,000,000 members. It is obviously a notable organization. And Brand is considered a scientific leader among them. He is notable. :) (revised) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donald, can you point out specifically which secondary sources describe these claims you are making here? Specifically about his unassuming and non-confrontational manner, the admiration his peers have expressed for him, his respect in both communities, his role in elevating the status of Loma Linda University's biology department and his recognition as one of the foremost researching scientist authors among the Seventh-day Adventist Church? — Hunter Kahn 03:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRS: the problem with your 'comment' is that it does not in fact address 'Notability' as Wikipedia defines it. It is a comment on why Brand is unusual (he is not unique -- there are a reasonable number of scientifically qualified creationists, a reasonable number of non-confrontational ones, and even a few besides Brand who are both), and and a comment on why many might consider him admirable. Notability, as Wikipedia defines it, requires "significant coverage" (being "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail") not merely "adequate mention". There are a very large number of people who are admirable that do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. There are also a large number of topics that are unusual, but insufficiently well-documented to meet them. Therefore demonstrating that he is unusual and/or admirable is largely a non sequitor to this discussion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hrafn, it seems to me that it is a judgment call. You are saying what this WP notability policy says: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. "

Notice the need for judgment, thus consensus"

  1. It should be "worthy of notice"
  2. It should be significant
  3. It should be interesting, or
  4. It should be unusual enough to deserve attention or be recorded.

These are very subjective standards. It is easy to understand why people dispute what is notable. What I believe is worthy of notice, significant, interesting, unusual enough to deserve attention will be different than what someone else's believes. The idea that this notability policy is cut and dried is misguided. So, this article is at the mercy of editor consensus, just like every other article in dispute. This consensus method is the best of all methods, IMO. But, it is a rough and tumble world. I like the experience and wisdom that you and others bring to the discussion. I like Wikipedia's dependance on administrator oversight because administrators themselves must go through a decision making process to become administrators. In any society, this allows the effective and careful editors to rise in the community. Cheers DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • One part of the Leonard R. Brand article which has been considered trite or trivial by some editors is the mention of the $50 Scholarship from the Edward C. Jaeger fund. Note that one of the notability notions is that if the item is interesting it is notable. Now, to me that award is interesting. It was a book award where the recipient was to use the money to buy reference books, not textbooks. Why? It was a simple way to encourage scholarship. For a poor kid in university, what an enjoyable experience to go hunting for a book you always wanted on birds, or whatever. To me, that's interesting. What is interesting to me is not to someone else. That's okay, really. To me it is a notable biographical fact. And lots of these little 'interesting' facts make for an interesting (notable) person. The same goes for 1826 Miller. Who cares? Well, ask an astronomer. Do you see what I am saying? WP Notability is quite subjective. As editors we shouldn't browbeat each other because we see things differently. Some of you reading this are battle hardened veterans of Wikipedia's wars, or disputes. The experience gained over time by such encounters garners respect, at least by me. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]



 
 

Hi Hunter_Kahn: I will work on a comprehensive answer to your question over the next little while. But, to help you see where I am so far, I will post this and then develop it further. I have listed each of your questions and have put the source author next to the question. All of these authors are cited in the article except Toumey. His book is my most recent interest. As an anthropologist, Toumey interviewed the GRI staff and discussed the GRI scientists' views as a united, coherent group. This includes Brand.

  1. Unassuming and non-confrontational manner? Lockley, Wise, Toumey
  2. The admiration his peers have expressed for him? Lockley, Wise, Toumey, Hoope,
  3. Respect in both communities? Toumey, Lockley
  4. His role in elevating the status of the biology department?
  5. One of the foremost researching scientist authors in SDA Church? Andrews University Press promotional paragraph for the book. (a disputed source)

If you have time, read Toumey's section on GRI. Since GRI is treated as a coherent group of scientists and since he quotes Brand as one of the GRI scientists, the GRI section helps to explain Brand's views. Toumey quotes Brand on two points, i.e. the need for civility and the need to not advocate junk science. Toumey explains GRI's relationship to other creationist organizations. He describes GRI's critical approach to the other Creationist groups. Yet, at the end of the section, on page 141, he describes the positive relationship between GRI and the other Creationist groups. Toumey also describes the Adventist idea of holistic truth. He points out that Adventists believe there are various sources of truth, not just the Bible. He says this sets Adventists (like Brand) apart from other Creationists. Toumey also describes the dual nature of Adventism. Within the Church, they hold strongly to Biblical YEC Creationist views, while outside the church they defend the need for doing good science and criticize their fellow creationist for advocating unscientific positions. This explains Brand's position. Brand is a cautious supporter of YEC creationism and a staunch supporter of the scientific method even to the extent that if science cannot verify an element of creationist thought, first admit it, then do more scientific inquiry. This combination makes Adventism and Brand in particular unique in the realm of Creationism.

Here is the online information for the book:

Toumey, Christopher P. (1994). God's own scientists: creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 289. ISBN 0-8135-2043-6.

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 
  • Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been principal editor since the Brand article has been nominated for deletion. I have worked really hard to document the notability of this man and have been quite impressed with his accomplishments, the rapport between him and other scientists and creationists. His studies of Shearwaters (1966) (not yet in the article) Chipmunks (only in the bibliography), Cactus Mice (not yet in the article), the infamous Salamander tracks study, the fossil whales of Peru, the fossil turtles of the Bridger Wilderness in Wyoming, the Wyoming Geological Survey's acknowledgement of his map making reports (not yet in the article), his early experience (1970) working on Dr. Nuefeld's Loma Linda University team (the same year he received his doctorate) in discounting the Paluxy man tracks controversy (not yet in the article), the Baldwin statement that the Adventist Church will find new Creationist inspiration from his research, the fact that Brand led the way in getting the Adventist church to approve a university program to train its members in Geology and Paleontology. His philosophy of science which diverges from other creationist groups, and the well-nigh universe accolades for his advocacy of respectful dialogue. That, to me makes a notable person. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have decided that I have expended enough energy on trying to save the Brand article. If the decision is to keep it, I will enjoy working on it some more. It is just too hard to fuss with another editor to this extent. IMO, Dr. Brand is a notable figure in America, unassuming but a very interesting person who's story is worthy of notice. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the record: I have slightly modified my plan: I am still addicted to discovery. I find it intellectully rewarding to study Brand's story. I am continuing to study him, but I don't plan to be involved in the day by day skirmishes, or to add more opinion here in the near future. I may do plan to make a few additions to the article but only after I have worked offline for most of the time. Also, I plan to work on solving the issues raised by the tags. I have defended the 'keep' side and my reasons hopefully are clear to all. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More time is needed. As I stand away from disputing the article, I continue to study about Brand. I plan to summarize my findings here within a few days. But, I have this brain wave. :) If the admins who decide on this article can grant me time to demonstrate what can be done, say for a month without editorial interference (but lots of counsel), I believe that I can demonstrate the notability and wisdom of a WP article on Brand. I don't know the protocol on such a request and admin guidance is always welcomed. Maybe, some sandbox time would help. When I first discovered this article, it was already nominated for deletion. I would like to work in a detailed fashion similar to what I have done on the history sections of Graham Maxwell, Southern Adventist University, Andrews University, etc. I don't consider any of these articles perfect, but they demonstrate the detail work that gives depth to any study. It is just a proposal. In the end, I will support the deciding admins conclusion. If the article is deleted after the month, I will still have learned about doing research and working on a really tough WP case. Cheers DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully, I find it very hard to believe that more time would be needed. It seems to me that you've been working on the article frequently throughout the week, and you've posted much more content here in this AFD much more frequently than you'd see in most other AFD discussions. Plus your request for a month of time "without editorial interference" isn't really how Wikipedia works. Nobody owns any article and you can't ask for exclusive access to it or special provisions like this. I also think it would set a bad precedent if after a week of AFD discussion and editing that failed to turn up any more secondary sources was concluded with an editor getting a month of time to see if he can maybe get the article up to par when a week wasn't enough. — Hunter Kahn 16:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hunter, thanks for your insight. This attempt to save the article is very hard, I must admit. Brand's notability is not easy to establish; maybe it can't be. This is one of my first attempts to save a difficult article and I have written way too much here, I agree. Also, in my learning to use the 'help me' tag, another editor has said pretty much the same thing you have said. If nothing else, this process is helping me be more careful with my edits and in what articles I choose to invest my time. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even after a week of heavy editing, the article contains NO SOURCES that establish the notability of the subject in accordance with WP policy. I wish to confirm my vote for Delete having taken all the recent edits into account, as well as all of the discussion on this page, the article talk page, and the user pages of the editors involved. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. It is not correct to say that there are no sources that establish notability. As I mentioned above, I found around 180 cites on Google Scholar. These (apart from self-cites) are highly reliable sources. However, they give an h-index of only 9, which is not quite enough to establish notability under WP:Prof#C1 according to past precedent on these pages. My recommendation is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Those sources are reliable, but they are not sufficient to establish notability to the level required by WP policy, as you have noted. Thanks for the info on the h index.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whilst a large amount of bare citation may (or in this case may not) add up to a sufficiently high h-index rating to meet WP:Prof#C1, they may still fall afoul of the WP:PROF#General notes: caveat that "it is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I think the level of reliable independent sources on this topic is so meagre that even if Brand met any of the criteria, we'd still have to look very seriously at deleting. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, as I noted in my comment above, WP:PROF makes it clear in several different places that WP:FRINGE and pseudo-science cases, like the one here, are generally to be routed through WP:BIO anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Compare Marcus Ross article with Leonard R. Brand

  • I realize I am bringing to this discussion a controversial post. If I remember correctly WP policy does not encourage comparing articles, remember 1826 Miller. Except: Wikipedia Policy does say that it is a goal for all articles to be of uniform notability, etc. WP policy asks that the focus be on the reasons for the difference not just the difference. Admins, I submit to your judgment on this. I accept the guidance of other civilized editors as well. Now, look over these two WP articles. They are both YECs. They are both Paleontolgists. Compare the bibliographies. Compare the complexities of the case for notability. Compare the quality of notable references. I like the Marcus Ross article. It is brief and clean. The Brand article is still cumbersome and in its rough stage. Any thoughts on reasons.
  • #Hrafn: You actively helped develop the Marcus Ross article. What is the difference, in your view, between the notability of the two scientists? Best Regards DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid... When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes... " DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing and contrasting Brand with Ross, both articles were created by the same banned sock, and both I have had a long-standing involvement with. The obvious difference between the two is that Ross has been "the main topic" of an 1800 word profile in the New York Times. That on its own goes a very significant way towards meeting the burden of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and is an order of magnitude greater than the total third-party coverage that Brand has garnered. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The other difference between the two is that the Ross article isn't larded up with (often quite trivial coverage) from affiliated sources to disguise the level of third-party content, nor is it liberally sprinkled with cherry-picked praise, often given extra prominence by {{quotation}} templates, from sources that are largely critical of Brand, or bltantant WP:Synthesis of a source that makes no mention of Brand. But then, the Ross article is not largely written by a determined WP:COI fan. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion that one article in the New York Times is worth orders of magnitude more than 200 citations in the scholarly literature, but it is not one that I agree with. I am surprised to find you defending the Marcus R. Ross article, which in my view is much worse than the present one, but I understand that creationists and their opponents often have strong views. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
"Significant coverage" is defined to be "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" and "more than a trivial mention". It is clear from this that an 1800 word profile on the topic counts towards meeting the former, whereas bare citations (even if very numerous) fall afoul of the latter. In any case, I was referring to the far fewer third party sources that actually discuss (and thus give coverage of) the topic, as opposed to merely citing him. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Hunter. This discussion is inappropriate for an AfD page, as it is trivial and distracting. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I first saw the article several days ago I was concerned about the sourcing and whether it would pass WP:N. I have been on the sidelines watching the article develop and it now just makes it past WP:N. – Lionel (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for Over-editing: I have just finished a discussion with a mentor regarding over-editing on an AfD article. As I think about the counsel, I realize I have been doing that here. My apologies. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2011 (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/Leonard_R._Brand&oldid=1137985609"