Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awake

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 to delete. Peacent 03:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awake

This article started as a stub and has been expanded, but not with anything useful. Theres about four sentences worth of material:

Being awake is the behavioral manifestation of the metabolic state of catabolism. It is the daily recurring period in an organism's life during which ... behaviors necessary for survival ... are conducted. Being awake is the opposite of being asleep, the behavioral manifestation of anabolism. Logically the only necessary behaviours are ingestion - for survival of the individual - and procreation, for the survival of the species.

(note catabolism/anabolism aren't even links in the article). It all seems kinda woolly and pointless which makes me wonder if there is any material one could possibly make an article out of for the topic.

The rest is an enlargement on the above, by enumeration of possible wakeful activities and further philosiphising (sp?). Then theres a number of other possible meanings for the word "awake", which don't belong here because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (Wiktionary is).

The philosophy sounds like Original Research to me; I can't really see the justification for it. Then all that would be left is the link to catabolism, so all the article could just redirect there.

I think the obvious problem with "Awake" as a topic for an article is that it is so broad as to be meaningless. At current it is focused on behaviour and what I'd call reductionist behavioural philosophy. Alternatively it could have been focused on neurology, physiology, psychology - anything really. Awake isn't a topic, it's what you get when you take Wikipedia and subtract Sleep. Sourcejedi 13:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the nominator's first AFD, and I've seen several hundred of them. He makes some good points in arguing that Awake is little more than a dicdef, but experience has shown that Wikipedia tolerates articles like this, and if the article is deleted now it will be recreated soon anyway. I think it should be tagged "cleanup" but not removed. Yechiel Man 13:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: recreation does not mean we should not delete. If the article is recreated in bad taste it can be salted. Ichibani _u^t_c 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - great reasoning by the nom as it does fail WP:NOT, but as stated by Yechiel, the page will be quickly recreated and it is a common term. Good job of keeping your eyes open Sourcejedi and keep being BOLD Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 14:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is really 'thin' in content and not at all encylopedic. It almost reads like a children's book i.e. "Animals can eat and run, fly, swim or walk while awake" etc. As the nom says "Awake isn't a topic, it's what you get when you take Wikipedia and subtract Sleep."--Arthana 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously some cleanup is necessary. But while wakefulness (possibly a better name for this article) is seen as the "default" state and sleep as a mode or alternate state deserving special attention (not the least due to curiosity, since we don't experience it with the same clarity), wakefulness does receive some scientific attention and so while sleep is naturally going to be a more comprehensive article there's no reason we can't have one as good at a shorter length. starter sources include [1][2][3][4] --Dhartung | Talk 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Awake (disambiguation) here. That would fill the void and not pose any prejudice against someone actually writing a verifiable article such as Awake (biology) or Wakefulness. Tikiwont 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tikiwont. This is a superior solution, as it addresses the issue of potential recreation. The current incarnation of this article is poor - and poorly titled. Putting the dab page here is the best solution. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the dab page, per Tikiwont. If a proper article can be written in the future, then great, but as it is the article is poor and has no meaningful content. PC78 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there's nothing wrong with stubby articles, this article doesn't need to exist; the first sentence of Awake (disambiguation) is all that's needed to explain it. Redirect to Awake (disambiguation), or move that page over awake. Someguy1221 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig or Delete -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Mike18xx 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Awake (disambiguation) in. Note: the definition on the disambiguation implied consciousness. As animals can be awake yet not necessarily conscious, I modified the definition. Ichibani _u^t_c 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep per Dhartung. A proper article can be written on this topic, it should be renamed "wakefulness", and Dhartung has already provided a starting point. Also, wakefulness is inherently notable, or else you're not reading this post. It is also written about quite a bit in scholarly articles. Also, regarding style: it looks like many ancient Wikipedia articles are similar to this in style and lack of sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:18, 19 June 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.