Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Sarfati

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Sarfati

Jonathan Sarfati (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia:Verifiability "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. According to Talk:Jonathan Sarfati, When this article was being heavily disputed I looked for WP:RS-compliant sources that were critical of Sarfati and was unable to find any other significant ones. The bottom line is that David is correct, Sarfati is almost off the radar screen. Furthermore, he and AiG have become even less on the radar in the last few years as the main focus among evolution groups has been dealing with intelligent design. JoshuaZ 20:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC) - In other words, he's a very minor figure in the creationist movement that it may be impossible to write a balanced article on. If we can't, we should delete him as non-notable. Adam Cuerden talk 14:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The issues of notability and balance are totally separate. Don't pretend that someone is non-notable if that is not the issue. You wouldn't delete Reagan or Clinton because it's hard to write in a balanced way about controversial figures.60.242.13.87 09:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Fails to assert notability. scope_creep 16:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete By a bit of online research I'd say he is a very minor-character in the world of Creationism. I also think if someone with a bit of knowledge about Aussie Creationism could step up to validate his notability it'd help. Regardless, google searches came up with non-notable articles and his book(s) being sold through Amazon. The most notable thing he has done it seems is win a chess tournament, IMHO. Missvain 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is asserted as author of numerous books for sale on Amazon, with "Refuting Evolution" ranking 28,000 in overall sales. He appears to meet WP:N criteria. Notable as chess player, independent of authorship, as a national chess champion. Notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with his creationism, he appears to merit an article. Edison 18:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If we can't do an article well, though, then we can't do it. Adam Cuerden talk 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete He does seem to be a minor figure in creationism. He is a minor author on the subject. He is also a minor figure in chess. From what I can tell his standings appear to be somewhere in the thousands world wide and has never been much higher. Scientifically he has a few articles but so do many. The article is definately way too long for such a minor figure. My take is he is a minor figure in several areas. Seems to be a smart guy with a moderate level of success in an odd array of fields. All of these minor achievements are well spun together into a compelling biography that makes him look important.

--Nick Y. 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Look, the page is a damned war zone, with huge boxes all over the page about banned editors. The entire article is POV. He has no independant sources outside of the circle of creationism and appears to have gotten no mainstream press. If writing a book is an indicator of notability, then I might as well have an article too. I'm also very uncomfortable with having a bio of a living person as controversial as this on Wikipedia, since it will attract nothing but trolls, Christian Creationist bashers, and POV pushers. While the article makes a valiant attempt at neutrality, it still fails WP:V and WP:RS. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment It is incorrect to say there are no independant sources for Sarfati. His work is criticised in scientific commentary by Scott E.C. and Branch G. (2003). Antievolutionism: Changes and Continuities BioScience: 53(3):282-285. He is clearly verifiable so the speedy delete is not satisfied by that criteria. The real issue is notability. He is borderline notable and this could go either way. David D. (Talk) 21:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree the article is not suitable for speedy deletion, but being in one book does not make for notability. Borderline is being extremely generous. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I am just going by some of the other crufty stuff I have seen here in WP. The fact he is rebutted by Talk.origins[1] and the Pharyngula blog [2] (both respected sources on the evolution/creation debate) lends more weight to his notability. As far as a support or oppose opinion from myself, I abstain. David D. (Talk) 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - largely per nom and Elaragirl. He has a big web presence but I have to agree with Adam here: I've never seen such bad POV. The sources are completely unbalanced, and the notablility seems dubious as well. This article stinks, not to put too fine a point on it. Moreschi 21:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone who voted delete •Jim62sch• 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per sources from David D. Also if it counts at all he has been frequently rebutted at Scienceblogs which has in the past been considered to meet WP:RS. JoshuaZ 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as there is no evidence of the sources being biased (assume good faith!). As far as notability goes; he may be down the scale, but he is part of an important debate (Creationism vs Evolutionism) which is only going to increase in the public arena. rossnixon 00:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Uh Ross, the vast majority of the sources are from AiG and its breakaway group. The only genuinely independent sources are for chess aside from some minor criticism. And no, AiG and other creationist ministries are not reliable sources by default. Indeed, if anything, the opposite is the case. JoshuaZ 06:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. POV disputes are not a reason for deletion; they are a reason for cleanup. I've seen this guy's name bandied around in multiple c vs. e discussions, and websites like Talk.origins and Pharyngula should count towards WP:RS. Zagalejo 00:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no limit on the number of articles in Wikipedia, and it seems that this man is important enough to appear in an encyclopedia with no page limit (WP:NOT#PAPER). -Preposterous 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    WP:NOT#PAPER is not a valid reason in an AfD debate. It still fails WP:V and, for gods sake, , Zagalejo, usenet is not a reliable source!! PLEASE review WP:RS. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was referring to the talk.origins site as a whole, and not simply the usenet postings. The talk.origins archive includes dozens of well-sourced articles, essays, and FAQs, and is pretty much universally respected by mainstream scientists. Look through this and tell me what you think. This isn't Mario's Tylenol Fan Page we're talking about here. Zagalejo 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Addendum Since I have too much to do to commit to this discussion, I'll just leave you all with these newspaper articles that mention Sarfati (some of which are about Sarfati). Discuss:
  • Shaw, Bob. "Ex-Wgtn man's book on evolution popular". The Evening Post (Wellington). 5 February 2001. p. 13
  • Sheil, Pat. "Prepare ye for fire, brimstone . . . and lunch". The Australian. 23 October 1996. p. 17
  • Ker, Anthony. "Sarfati shows top form". The Evening Post (Wellington). 17 April 1996. p. 10
  • Lockman, Terri. "Conyers man makes his mark with creationist credo". The Atlanta Journal and Constitution. 11 November 1999. p. 8JR.
  • Ker, Anthony. "Swiss pairing brings tournament problems". The Evening Post (Wellington). 1 May 1996. p. 19
  • "Polls show many people do not believe evolution". Columbus Dispatch. 7 January 2000. p. 10A.
  • Box, Gavin. "Geelong 'bunyip' could be dinosaur". Geelong Advertiser. 5 December 2005. p. 15
  • "God and religion". Mornington Peninsula Leader (Australia). 6 June 2006. p. 34.
  • Keep. The man is was chess champion of his country and is still highly ranked in that country almost 20 years later, so his creationist views should not disqualify him. FWIW, his first book Refuting Evolution has 450,000 copies in print. This is more than, for example, Sam Harris's equally polemical first book attacking Christianity. And an opponent calls him "Answers in Genesis' number one propagandist"[3], surely a testimony to notability.60.242.13.87 09:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC) - This account is not a SPA and should not be labeled as such. Elaragirl.
FWIW, Answers in Genesis' book catalog said that his Refuting Evolution was "Our best selling book ever". So creation may be rubbish, but it seems that he is one of the best selling representatives of said rubbish. 58.162.2.122 07:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable for his accomplishments in Chess alone. Fix POV on the rest. --Czj 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As public figure (in Australia and New Zealand) speaking on a controversial issue, he deserves an article in Wikipedia. David Cannon 10:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep ken 10:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
  • Keep. I find Mr Sarfati's views laughable and potentially dangerous, but I think he definitely deserves an article. As long as it adheres to WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, etc. Snalwibma 17:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Published author, scientist, chess champion of NZ, tragic waste of a fine mind. It should all be documented. We were at school together. Wikid 20:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dr. Sarfati's first book alone has 400,000 copies in print. Compared with the normal circulation of a non-fiction book, that is enormous. He is one of the notable figures in the creation/evolution debate and as such deserves an article.156.110.211.130 04:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for most of the reasons already cited. WMMartin 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is notable. The article is supposed to be about Sarfati, which includes his beliefs. His beliefs are presented as his beliefs, not as truth, and the sources used must surely be considered reliable sources of what his beliefs are. Yet this is somehow claimed to be POV, despite there being a section titled "Writings and criticism", responding to his beliefs. I struggle to find an evolutionist on Wikipedia with a section titled "criticisms" or similar, but on Wikipedia it's considered POV to simply describe a creationist's beliefs. And some of the criticisms are presented as truth, such as "those scientists do not demonstrate any manifestation of religious faith". The only POV in this article is an anti-creationist one. Philip J. Rayment 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It must be said that what you're seeing is a highly revised version, in which a lot of very bad passages were moved to the talk page. It was much worse when I nominated it. Adam Cuerden talk 04:40, 21 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.