Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki

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 of the debate was No consensus (defaults to Keep). kingboyk 05:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CreationWiki

Delete. I don't find it as much more than a vanity article; it is a small community that has few active people and the article is short on information on them in my opinion because there is little if anything of note to say about them. The rest of the information on the page is more a candidate for merging with the 'Criticisms of Wikipedia' page than a seperate article. Wizardry Dragon 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The majority of those who have contribute to the page have no afiliation with Creationwiki. The article has been modified many times by veteran editors, so I don't think any vanity remains, if any was present. Other wiki article have much less content. Prometheus^-X303- 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit of logical fallacy there - the presence of other articles with less content does not speak of the merits of an article in and of itself. Wizardry Dragon 23:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: In any event, even if it were kept (I maintain that it is not of sufficient relevance to warrant an entry), I still suggest that 1/2 of the article be deleted or moved - as per the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia. The NPOV guidelines apply to everything, including views on Wikipedia, and the article is quite unashamedly biased in that way. I will attempt to edit that out; but I suspect it'll be reverted Wizardry Dragon 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Though I like the effort the article author put into being objective. Haikupoet 03:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I wish the creators of the CreationWiki the best in their endeavor (sorry about the pun) and perhaps someday they will be notable. Not today. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  changing opinion to Keep per JoshuaZ's argument that it will help to deflect confusion between CreationWiki and Wikipedia. CreationWiki may not be notable now, but Wikipedia surely is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not today. as per KC David D. (Talk) 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; no evidence of notability outside its own community. — Matt Crypto 21:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Matt Crypto — ciphergoth 21:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as it has potential notability. Besides I wouldn't want this held up as an example of systematic bias given EvoWiki; keeping it isn't a biggy and provides yet another article to edit war over. :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful information. I created the original article BTW. FeloniousMonk 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I have contributed to this article, however I cannot justify keeping this article under policy grounds. In particular, I am not convinced that it meets WP:N(I will attempt to see if it has been mentioned in any of the major creationist publications which would presumably push it to notability, but at present am not aware of any). However, as a matter of not appearing biased, we should probably not delete it. It will look very bad if we do. JoshuaZ 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment So far the only mentions I have found are various miscelaneous passing references, such as here: [1] which brings up another reason to possibly keep the article. Many people seem to be under the incorrect impression that CreationWiki is somehow associated with Wikipedia. Having an article on CreationWiki that says that that is false is helpful. JoshuaZ 05:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I sent an email to religioustolerance.org and they have corrected that page in regard to affiliation of CreationWiki, which leaves by my estimate at least another 5 websites which still have that mistake. JoshuaZ 15:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think we need to avoid deleting articles in what might appear to be a partisan matter. I don't regard this article as a vanity article. The existence of this wiki is notable in the context of creationist propaganda. It's also interesting with regard to how censorship can fail on the web. Barnaby dawson 08:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment After a more extensive search I am unable to find more than passing mention of CreationWiki in other creationist organizations. This brings up to my mind serious issues of notability in the creationist movement. JoshuaZ 14:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We have just recently had a whole list of deletion request against several creationist articles in de.wikipedia, all claiming that whatever these creationists do is irrelevant. I do not like this approach. I also support JoshuaZ that it should be important to show that CreationWiki is not part of Wikipedia and keeping the article does not hurt. Heiko Evermann 10:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No one here is calling for the deletion of Answers in Genesis or anything like that. JoshuaZ 14:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I would likely never have heard of this web site if the Wikipedia article wasn't up for deletion. It's not a view I support at all, but it represents enough effort that I think it merits coverage. Tracking small-scale social phenomena like this is one of the valuable services Wikipedia performs.--agr 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as per JoshuaZDarquis 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:WEB miserably. The reason we want multiple independent sources to write aobut something, is we need those sources, to have in-depth neutral article. This page can't say anything meaningful. It can just repeat what CreationWiki says, as that's about the only source of information available (obviously a non-neutral source). Notice please, that the "Criticisms of CreationWiki" section is *entirely* unsourced. It refers to "Critics of CreationWiki", but doesn't say who those critics are, or where those criticisms were published. I suggest those "critics" are the very Wikipedian(s) who wrote that section. This is such a minor web site, that almost no publisher of note, either knows or cares enough to write about this very minor site. Removing all unsourced stuff, will leave behind, a rather pathetic substub. -Rob 19:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: While i agree the article doesn't meet the WP:WEB guidelines, they are just that, guidelines. In this case we are dealing with a controversial topic that I think most of us do not take seriously, but has high political impact, at least in the U.S. Stretching things a bit to maintain neutrality may be appropriate here. I'd also call attention to footnote 2 of the guideline. I think a case can be made that the parent organization, Northwest Creation Network, is notable enough for an article and that, at worst, this page should be moved to that title.--agr 12:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We shouldn't keep articles on non-notable sites that don't meet any of the guildeines at WP:WEB. That deleting an article will "look very bad" is not a reason to keep – we're here to write articles with encyclopedic merit, not to appease every point of view that comes through here. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 20:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Deletion serves no purpose ,server memory is considerablly unlimited.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 20:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's hardly a reason to keep something. Wizardry Dragon 20:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As a "rival" to WP's pages on the same topics, it seems sensible for WP to maintain an article on it. It does sound like there are notability issues, but I think it's too early to judge. As an aside, the lack of participation in it by creationists is somewhat noteworthy (and revealing) in itself. --Plumbago 12:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I am not convinced about it's notability at this time, a Google News search didn't show anything, but there is definitely a growing Internet community there, and I also feel we should be slow to remove an article about a site that is critical to Wikipedia. TH 07:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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.