Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uberman's sleep schedule

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. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uberman's sleep schedule[edit]

Non-notable sleep schedule. Appears to be an Everything2 article that became a Kuro5hin article that became a personal weblog, only claiming a "mention as such" in an academic text. (From an Amazon.com search, the Neil Strauss book does not appear to include the word 'Uberman'.) Flagged since July 2007. Looking at the history, it has been prodded before for being an "uninformed clone of Da Vinci sleep". McGeddon (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I heard about the Uberman sleep schedule by word of mouth and of course went to look it up on Wikipedia - in addition there are around 6,000 Google hits for it! Both of these points demonstrate how the USS concept has gained a foothold in the public imagination. The effectiveness of the technique is arguable and perhaps it is just an uninformed clone of Da Vinci Sleep - but those are points to raise in its Wikipedia entry, which I think should remain. --AbePralle 05:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word of mouth and Google results are, by themselves, insufficient for WP:N. --McGeddon (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could this article (as well as everyman sleep schedule) be incorporated as sections in polyphasic sleep? And could the reference to Sara Mednick's published research be featured more prominently? In those cases, I would vote keep. Mark.Howison (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. There is no coverage in reliable souces to make keeping any of what is here. Nuttah (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject will undoubtedly appear and reappear otherwise. It would be best to have this all in one place. I think the most of the present article Polyphasic sleep should be moved here, with a very short note at the beginning of Polyphasic sleep sending interested readers here. I think the Everyman sleep schedule article should be deleted and that article should become a section of Uberman, as a variant. --Hordaland (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have read of this concept before, outside of Wikipedia. Regardless of whether the topic is noteworthy in a clinical or medical context, it should be documented in Wikipedia simply because it exists. A person who reads or hears of this idea from other sources will surely want to learn more about it, and Wikipedia must satisfy that desire. If this sleep strategy is indeed ineffective (and I have no doubt that this is the case), the correct response is to document that fact in the WP entry, not delete the article entirely.

(Sneaking in line here.) The argument immediately above is a very good one for Keep. I hope it will be counted, even though the author has forgotten to sign it. --Hordaland (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reputable sources. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Would anyone really mind if I moved the bulk of Polyphasic sleep to the Uberman article and removed the OR flag from Polyphasic sleep? I've been considering doing so for some time. I think I'll just do it to make the Polyphasic article acceptable. Then most of the Uberman stuff will be in one place, to be discussed further. --Hordaland (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that a merge in the other direction would have made more sense - the wider subject of polyphasic sleep seems to be more strongly sourced than the Uberman system specifically, and I don't see that the original research in polyphasic sleep is confined to Uberman. --McGeddon (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. Well, I just did it. I see your point, but I think the (now) short Polyphasic sleep should be about what lies in the name. The "new" Uberman article does include many variants and should perhaps be renamed. Intentional polyphasic sleep? Uberman and other sleep schedules? Or it could be called Naps, which already has a disambiguation page. --Hordaland (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There wasn't much point discussing deleting the Uberman article, if the reason was to get rid of doubtful information and claims, as long as virtually identical information and claims also appeared on Polyphasic sleep. --Hordaland (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Polyphasic sleep, I think it makes more sense to go that way with a merge than this way.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.