Post AfD Firstly the second AfD was proposed too soon after the first particularly when the issue of giving time to allow the article to develop was raised by two of the three voters in the first AfD Second if Philosophy Teacher s renaming of the article fit the content then his deletion of content that did not fit the new title might have been unnecessary no Especially when his reason for the new title was in order to fit the content 03 45 12 February 2011 Philosophy Teacher talk contribs m 4 659 bytes moved S ren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche to Friedrich Nietzsche s view of S ren Kierkegaard Judging from the way the article is written this is its actual topic 03 51 12 February 2011 Philosophy Teacher talk contribs 3 611 bytes deleted points of comparison out of place given that the article s actual topic is Nietzsche s view of Kierkegaard to judge from the first paragraph This is not the only unhelpful change during the AfDs in my opinion This is the article at its best and this is the diff between that and the day of writing The major differences are obvious I call your attention to the farcical replacement of an easily verifiable statement Most researchers believe that Friedrich Nietzsche 1844 1900 knew little of with the tie me to the mast and damn the torpedos stance of Friedrich Nietzsche 1844 1900 knew little of all because of the WP crusade against weasel words I am reminded by a lesson that I learned from probably the most contentious and biased editor I know on WP even a stopped clock is right once a day He said that the lead does not have to have citations The rest of the article is the verification for it In the same way unsupported claims however weaseloid can inform the reader quickly and cleanly and be verified elsewhere If the article is restored I recommend moving the comparison of the two philosophers approach to Christian topics out of the lead to a separate paragraph in the Points of Comparison section