Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

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 Merge into The God Delusion after rewrite. ~ trialsanderrors 00:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unencyclopaedic pro-creationist rant against science. Hopelessly and irretrievably POV. Far too small and specific a topic for an article anyway. Gnusmas 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I have heard of that topic. Needs citations, needs work but a valid topic none the less. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. Snalwibma 20:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oh please let's keep it just for the amusement value! Laurence Boyce 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - If it is deleted, other articles will have to incorporate it. ggilberd 14 november 2006 — Ggilberd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Keep The article is a rather accurate summation of the argument made by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. Contrary to the nominator's justification, this argument is encyclopedic, and is posed as a rather strong argument AGAINST religion, creationism and the existence of God, by Dawkins, who is a strongly anti-religious atheist. This argument is an expansion of Dawkins' earlier 1986 work in The Blind Watchmaker, in which Dawkins rebuts the watchmaker analogy made famous by William Paley as an argument FOR the existence of God. Alansohn 20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You may wish to go back and look at the article more carefully. That Hoyle and Dawkins used variations on the same metaphor to make contradicting points, that is encyclopedic (if, as the nominator says, "Far too small and specific a topic for an article anyway.") The same cannot be said, I think, of "Obviously p(God|God)=1 and p(God|No_God)=0, which is indeed at least as low as p(X|No_God), but this says nothing useful." -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and also look carefully at articles such as Russell's teapot, Last Thursdayism, etc. There seems to be an increasing perception that if twenty different analogies/rhetorical figures have been used to try and make a particular point, each of those analogies should be given its own article, rather than mentioning those analogies or a reasonable subset thereof in an article which is about the point they drive to(and of course, in NPOV fashion, about the counter-point to that point.) Even if the analogy of the "Ultimate Boeing 747" was notable enough to merit its own individual article, this article would still be bad, as pretty much everything except the direct quotes is original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge perhaps the first part (the non-OR part) into The God Delusion. Both that book and its author are unquestionably notable. But this topic, with respect to notability by itself without reference to the book, is not. (Perhaps in the future it might be.) Else delete. Baccyak4H 21:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. One particular argument made in a book is not presumed notable, unless good sources are provided to the contrary. Also, it's mostly unsourced, confused, and unencyclopedic. Sandstein 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. By all means let's add to the article but please not just supress anything that does not conform to the Atheism POV. The trope that anything that casts doubt on atheism is a "rant against science" should be avoided, if we want a rational discussion. Also there was a link to this long before the article was created, so someone (else) thought there should be an article.NBeale 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC) -- NBeale is the article's author.
  • I'm not sure that 15 days ago is "long", and even if so, that does not mean that 71.4.131.226 was right in thinking the topic was substantive enough to support an entire Wikipedia article. By the way, please cease your accusations of anti-atheist bias, they are not CIVIL. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, it's considered bad form not to mention that you are an article's author when participating in an AfD discussion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's an argument against the theory of evolution. - Richardcavell 21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually no it isn't (you might want to read the article) and that isn't a reason to keep an article anyways. JoshuaZ 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Weak Merge possibly notable enough to keep; but is very POV and may require merging. Hello32020 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The God Delusion is already covered; so are Creationism and the Argument from design. Unless and until this particular argument becomes a major topic of discussion in reliable sources, this isn't an encyclopedic topic. Cheers, Sam Clark 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The main part is quite clearly original research. If someone else uses that argument and it can be cited then fine but for now it is just OR. The first bit should be merged into The God Delusion. --Bduke 00:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete more or less per Sandstein. The argument is simply not notable enough at this point. We have on Dawkins use of it and that's it (it actually seems to be just a variation of "who designed the designer" anyways) and the last part is definitely OR. If it gets picked up by other people then it might become notable. JoshuaZ 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The phrase is essentially a neologism created by Richard Dawkins. If important enough for a mention at all, it should be within the context of The God Delusion, not as a separate article. Joyous! | Talk 03:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or weak Merge to The God Delusion. An individaul argument from any particular book doesn't justify an article unless that argument becomes the source of debate or media coverage. -Kubigula (ave) 05:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Changing my position to straight merge. As edited, the content now clearly justifies merger. -Kubigula (ave) 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - When I said "unencyclopaedic rant" etc in nominating this for deletion, what I meant was that the article fails to meet Wikipedia criteria on at least three grounds. (1) As several people have said here, it's a small phrase, a throwaway remark, in Dawkins's latest book which does not deserve to be elevated to article status. (2) It's original research. (3) It seems to me to be an underhand attempt to push a particular viewpoint. The clue is in the title. Dawkins does not use the phrase "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", he refers to an "Ultimate Boeing 747". The addition of the word "gambit" is the sneaky bit, and the bit which condemns this article to irretrievable POV-ness. Gambit is "an action or remark that is calculated to gain an advantage" (Concise OED). By inserting this word the creator of this article is attributing motives to Dawkins in an underhand way, and the article itself represents a "gambit" on the part of the creationists. There is no such topic as "The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit". Gnusmas 07:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Factual correction Dawkins says (op cit p113) "My name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit." NBeale 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• In that case I stand corrected (I do not have the book to hand) - but you cannot then say that Dawkins' statement "in its entirety" is as you quote in the article. That dismissive "in its entirety" is another clear demonstration of the article's bad faith and its status as an attempt to push one particular POV. Gnusmas 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. One person's argument for creationism without any widespread attention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think that it is written with POV and is referenced Graemec2 10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. What follows "Dawkins does not explain what he means by statistically improbable." is not referenced and it is this that is original research and a POV. --Bduke 10:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's one portion of The God Delusion and this article reeks of WP:OR and WP:POV. Only 32 hits on google, not one hit outside of book reviews or excerpts, no MSM usage of the term, etc. Completely non-notable on its own. *Spark* 15:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Must we have an editorial commentary on every concept ever tossed out in every best-selling book? This is beyond OR, this belongs on a blog. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect (changed my mind from weak keep as I've edited it and truthfully can't pad this out any more even after re-reading chapter 4. It had way too much WP:OR so I've gutted out what I feel is the OR. Ttiotsw 20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per KC •Jim62sch• 09:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete essay. Mukadderat 16:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to The God Delusion - A subsection of a popular book does not need its own web page unless it is a book commonly referred to by its subdivisions (like the Bible). (What an ironic statement, especially from a person who shares Dawkins's viewpoint!) George J. Bendo 20:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually quite relevant - the Bible was written by many people, cobbled together willy-nilly and has internal inconsistencies. It can be picked apart because of this organic construction. The God Delusion is a single book written by one person and intended as a coherent whole. I've changed my mind now to Merge/Redirect too. Ttiotsw 20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete There may be a little content worth explaining in a sentence or two back in the main The God Delusion article, but that could be done without a merge or a redirect. Edhubbard 23:16, 19 November 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.