Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Answers in Genesis

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 22:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Answers in Genesis

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 21:29, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

• Agreed, notability is not asserted in the article. Delete. --Scimitar 21:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be shown --Doc (?) 21:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Answers in Genesis is (alas) notable. This is not. Postdlf 22:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:50, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
• Keep. Cited by the BBC [1], by Keith Korcz of the University of Louisiana as part of his philosophy course supporting material and by the Geological Society of America (founded 1888) as a resource site [2]: "NAiG publishes articles by Australian scientists (and others) that expose the fallacies of AiG in particular and young Earth creationism (YEC) in general". Also cited as a resource for the National Conference on the Teaching of Evolution [3], a conference supported by the National Science Foundation, the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and the Geological Society of America and organised by the Paleontological Society, the Society for the Study of Evolution, and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently, it is notable. The article, however, still needs a massive copyedit, cleanup, and those references included in it. Change vote to abstain --Scimitar 23:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Fair enough. I cleaned it up to include the citations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a very average/minor organisation in the creation/evolution debate, only notable for its personal attacks on Ken Ham.--nixie 23:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm seeing alot of relevent google hits, and in addition to Tony's list I've seen several other links to it from several credible websites. And the half million on the counter doesn't hurt. I'm still slightly suspiscious though. Jimbobsween 00:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• A cautious keep per Tony Sidaway. DS1953 02:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Seems notable. JamesBurns 06:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Tony Sidaway. -CunningLinguist 07:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If you have an article promoting Answers in Genesis, it seems to me censorship to exclude the contrary view. Strong keep:: no-one is obliged to read it --Simon Cursitor 07:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment (no vote at this time): The Answers in Genesis article should not be promoting the viewpoints of AiG. (WP:NPOV) — The Storm Surfer 21:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep without prejudice. —RaD Man (talk) 08:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful for those wanting to track the development of this debate and tactics used. --Ian Pitchford 10:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. This article has potential, but needs cleanup. -- Zantastik talk 07:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep..Dunc|☺ 08:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but the article should be marked for cleanup when this vfd is over. - Jersyko talk 22:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.