Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palaeos

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 keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 02:05, January 9, 2007.

[edit] Palaeos

Palaeos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:WEB. Very few independent references. Article does not really assert notability and seems to verge on violation of WP:Spam. Hatch68 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable per WP:WEB. Jayden54 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Not notable? Good grief, it's demise was noted in The Lancet, how many non-notables get that, written up in what even Wikipedia calls "one of the oldest peer-reviewed medical journals in the world?[1] And it's return got written up in Science (journal) for Pete's sake![2] We're really discussing this delete based on notability? My web page didn't even get written up in the school newspaper, much less some of the top peer-reviewed science journals in the world. KP Botany 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's set something straight in what you said. Your reference is a blogspot entry that is named "lancelet.blogspot.com" and is written by an individual. That is a far cry from being mentioned by The Lancet. Also, the responsibility to provide notability references lies with those wishing to keep the article. Blog entries don't count, btw. Hatch68 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Still, Science (journal) is good enough. And that was in the article. Why should I have to provide something that is already in the article? I can just delete something if I assert it's not notable and no one says it is? KP Botany 22:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, blogs don't count. It wasn't mentioned in Science the journal, it was mentioned on a blog on the the Science web site. Hatch68 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs do count just read the guideline from Notability (Web) "Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web host" (emphasis added)

The blog on the Science web site , as with similar blogs at other professional sites, is sponsored by the society and moderated. Established email lists of that sort are accepted and so are blogs (especially because they tend to be the exact equivalents). We adjust to new media--if anyone should, it's us. I mention that Notability (Web) is a guideline, not a policy. Even as a guideline, I note the wording "if the content itself is notable" it does not say: "if the site is notable"

I also take issue with the concept that the article has to assert notability. it has to demonstrate notability. I've seen articles listed for deletion because the editor didn't think of using the exact words. Aside from an obscure listing in Speedy, I do not see the words the article has to assert notability in any policy or guideline. DGG 08:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(A7) is certainly not obscure. It's commonly used to determine if an article should be deleted. I'm also moving your keep comment to where it belongs, to keep the !votes sequential. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notable per WP:WEB.

Criteria: Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

I listed two non-trivial published works in the references. Science's netwatch is clearly authoritative. Johnson 2003 is a print publication; you can see a screenshot of the Palaeos citation here.

Palaeos is also listed as a reference in Benton, 2004, Vertebrate Palaeontology p.10, regarding the Chengjiang fauna. Sure it is only a single reference, but note that Benton 2004 is a widely used college-level textbook; the taxonomy has been adopted in the Wikipedia coverage of vertebrates. Professor Mike Benton is a world authority in the field, so any website he lists would have to be important.

References to material on Palaeos is cited in the bibliography in Mark Isaak 2007 The Counter-Creationism Handbook - Page 316

Palaeos is mentioned a number of times in Science magazine, as indicated as you can see by Google Scholar.

72,000 Google webhits for "Palaeos" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=palaeos&sa=N&tab=bw (although obviously not all refer to the site), 24,300 for "Palaeos.com" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=palaeos&sa=N&tab=bw

newsgroups 207 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=palaeos&sa=N&oe=UTF-8&tab=wg mostly relating to Evolution-Creationism debates (c.f. also Isaak 2007 in this regard)

I also fail to see how this page qualifies as Spam. From the Wikipedia Spam page There are three types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Which one of those three is this page on the verge of violating? M Alan Kazlev 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Read what you listed: "The content itself has been the subject of..." (emphasis added by me.) Being used as a reference and being mentioned in a short blog entry doesn't meet the standards in my opinion. Only the blog entry made Palaeos the subject of the reference.

You haven't even addressed the fact that notability is not asserted in the article in the first place. I also didn't say it was spam, I said it was verging on spam, which I am now acknowledge was not the case. Also, since you were one of the originators of the web site in question, you would have a difficult time convincing me that you have any NPOV in this debate. Hatch68 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so it was on their website, not in their print journal, however, Science, the organization, calls it an article not a blog. And, no, the website for the American Association for the Advancement of Science is not rated the same as some anonymous blogger's website, it counts as an independent website of high credibility. Also, if it's spam what the heck is Palaeos selling, I want to buy some. T-shirts? I'd love to wear one. Anyway, it's surprising this nomination coming from someone with an interest in geology, as the many geologists I know love this website and its creators, and we even use it for research, like a specialized encyclopedia, it's a great place to start looking for information about life in the past. KP Botany 22:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See the above comment re:Spam. Also, bringing my personal interests into this has no bearing upon the discussion. I would prefer to stay focused on the fact that no satisfactory references have been made about the notability. Hatch68 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Science's Netwatch citation will also appear in the hardcopy magazine. That plus Johnson 2003 means Palaeos is discussed (not just cited as a reference, or an annotated reference as in the other Science articles) in two print non-trivial published works in the references. As for my POV in this debate, are you saying Hatch that I am uneligable as a wikipedian to vote on this issue or to provide evidence in favour of keeping this page? btw I agree with Firsfron that the page should be rewritten to better establish notability M Alan Kazlev 23:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First, the article is most certainly not spam. Whether or not it is notable enough to avoid violation of the linked Wiki policy, I don't know. The way I read that policy, it doesn't seem that the references listed are sufficiant. It seems to mean something more along the lines of independent published articles about the site, not those that mention the site in passing or use it as a source, as Benton does. I'd support a delete unless some more prominant sources discussing the site are presented. I would, however, advocate the site being used as a reference more often in vertebrate articles. If it's good enough for Benton, it should be good enough for us! Dinoguy2 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So people should resource the site (and, heck, I agree, if it's good enough for Benton....), but when people want to know what is being resourced, folks can't come to Wikipedia and find out what it is? KP Botany 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There's simply not much anyone can do if the world's largest scientific society deems a topic notable and Hatch68 deems the scientific organization unworthy of determining notability. If AAAS isn't notable according to your POV, that's that. KP Botany 22:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I consider what you just said an unfair attack on me. I have no bias as to whether the subject of this debate is notable or not. As I've said several times, notability requires references. You seem to be making arguments without being familiar with the underlying Wikipedia policies. If the proper references are made and notability is asserted, I have no problem changing my position to a strong keep for this article. Please avoiding attacking me in the future and focus on the discussion at hand. Hatch68 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's exactly what is going on, I asserted a reference, and you, without any evidence or citations that AAAS is not notable, dismissed the reference I provided. I gave a reference. You dismissed it without any proof of its non-notability--that is your POV, as you have NOT provided any evidence to back up the non-notability of AAAS. Please focus yourself on the discussion at hand. I gave a reference, you dismissed it as non-notable. KP Botany 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There seems to be confusion about what constitutes a non-reliable blog. According to guidelines, a blog can't be considered as a reliable source only if it is essentially a "personal web site" with no editorial control. Simply because something is published in a blog or journal-style presentation does not invalidate it as a source; the things that Science publishes in a "blog" on its website are subject to a considerable amount of oversight and editorial control. Saying the Science magazine blog is unreliable borders on silliness. As for the argument that it apperas to be spam--I think that's patently false, specious wholecloth--or "bullshit" in the common vernacular. Tarinth 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please point out where anyone said the Science magazine blog is "unreliable."

In a discussion of the Science magazine blog as a source, it was stated that blogs don't count, which while it does not specifically use the term "unreliable" appears to invalidate the source under WP:RS guidelines.

Hatch68 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see how a wikipage for Palaeos constitutes as spam. Both versions of the site are intended to display the history of Life, as well as the phylogenic trees of living and extinct organisms. I want to add that even though the trees are still under construction, they are still very extensive. --Mr Fink 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam is not the issue. Please read the entire discussion. Hatch68 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I did read the discussion, and that's why I mentioned the fact that Palaeos is in the process of providing phylogenic trees of living and extinct organisms, as the main intent at the site is to have them as public reference. If it's a problem of notability, then how come the American Association for the Advancement of Science's opinion is not valid for determining notability? Does Palaeos need two or three more independant organizations to be deemed notable by Wikipedia? Furthermore, if spam is not the issue, then why does it still say that one of the reasons for deletion is that it "verges on spam"?--Mr Fink 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it only needs one good reference that is used in the proper context to assert notability. I have no idea why no one seems to want to do so. The spam issue is now corrected with deletion tags thanks to a suggestion by Tarinth. Hatch68 23:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the Science's Netwatch citation, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science?--Mr Fink 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Palaeos.com is a well-respected site which I use regularly as a source for Wikipedia articles. The current article does not establish any sort of notability, and thus is eligible for deletion. However, the links above give some claim to notability, and really should have been included in the article in the first place. Article needs a good re-write, establishing the notability the site apparently has (used by well-respected professional paleontologists? Notable). As for Palaeos.org, it is an unfinished wiki with no real claim to notability. It could be mentioned at the end of the article, as a brief note. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. Based on the evidence above, and knowing this article lacks the assertion of notability required for a Wikipedia article, I've rewritten this article so that it should now conform to the policy, with notability asserted, with inline citation. Further comments? Firsfron of Ronchester 23:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Question Where is the assert notability policy? It makes common sense, but just because something makes common sense doesn't mean I can use it in Wikipedia. I've heard this before, assert notability, but can't find the policy. KP Botany 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's covered in several places, but WP:SPEEDY#Articles comes to mind: (A7) "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." This is also partly covered at WP:WEB, but there it is only a guideline. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• In the current form I have no problem with the article and this debate can be closed. I would like to bring attention to the numerous straw man arguments and misdirections by a few of the persons involved in this discussion so far. At no point did I assert that the Palaeos web site is non-notable. I said in the original nomination that it failed the WP:WEB policy. This was due to notability not being asserted and a lack of multiple non-trivial published works cited as references to back up the notability. I erred in believing that it was a possible case of link spam, but I quickly admitted this during the debate. It appears that many of the people injecting themselves into this debate have little or no understanding of WP:WEB or the notability policies in general. Hatch68 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Well, I wasn't sure, that's why I read the policy and asked questions about other policies. Here are the criteria for WP:WEB:

==Criteria==

Web-specific content^[1] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

• The criteria for the WP:WEB policy, that you state it fails ("Fails WP:WEB.") ARE subsections of notability. So, if you state it fails WP:WEB, and I go to WP:WEB to see what's going on, and the big ole Criteria section starts with the statement, "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria," it's reasonable that I would expect you are asserting it failed notability. That's what this policy is about, and it clearly states this in the article, which I went and read. If WP:WEB is not about notability, it should not so clearly, purposefully and obviously list notability as the deciding factor. KP Botany 02:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, everyone calm down please. It's clear the original article didn't assert notability, but it now does. The citation for verifiability of notability is in place, and there's no sense in beating a dead equine, right? Hatch has admitted s/he erred in thinking the article was linkspam (the original article was in pretty bad shape; still could use some work, BTW), and KP admitted s/he wasn't all that familiar with the assertion of notability policy. It happens; let's move on, ok? :) If you want to continue the discussion about who was right, maybe take it off this page. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above M&NCenarius 02:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep DGG 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 08:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palaeos as a test case discussion

Some sections of the sciences have historically had long-standing traditions of interacting with the lay community, paleontology, botany in regards to native plants, and astronomy come to mind. One of the important things that an encyclopedia like Wikipedia can do is honor this relationship. There are a handful of paleontological websites designed either for the lay community (UCMP) or for the lay and professional community both. These websites should have their article pages on Wikipedia for the utility of users being able to find reliable information about those websites. An egregious omission in Wikipedia, for example, is an article about Oceans of Kansas. It's somewhat hard to find sources about these websites, though, making it difficult to argue for including an article about them. KP Botany 21:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been having similar difficulties with standard online reference works. They sound exotic, a fair description tends to sound like an advertisement, especially since pricing is relevant as a guide to availability to our users. The major professional websites speak for themselves, just like major computer ones do, and sourcing is almost impossible. The computer-oriented ones have no problem. Perhaps an approach of demonstrating number of links from university department sites might work. DGG 07:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think it's notable enough. --DanielCD 19:11, 4 January 2007 (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.