Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mims-Pianka controversy

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. John254 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mims-Pianka controversy

Mims-Pianka controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

non-notable tempest in the creation/evolution blogosphere, only 329 hits at google. CruftCutter (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Can be covered (and is) in the main subjects article. Gtstricky (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and interesting. Google hits, although an interesting method of determining interest, are not the only thing that matters. Well, Joshua makes a good argument too! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• keep The article as currently written has 16 sources. Now some of those used are blogs, but by my estimate 12 of the sources are reliable sources. Furthermore, even before we get to the irrelevancy of google hit numbers there are many google hits not covered by the above google search. For example, googling without the hyphen turns up many additional sources (many overlapping), and simply googling for Mims+Pianka turns up even more sources. And a search of google news shows many additional reliable sources even beyond those used in the article, as seen here which include Fox News, the Boston Globe, and CBS. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Joshua. Guettarda (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia's notability guideline tells us "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Articles in the mainstream media are secondary sources, and these 18 [1] show it is a notable enough topic to warrant an article and it characterization as a "non-notable tempest in the creation/evolution blogosphere" by the nom is flat wrong. Furthermore, his search engine test for notability is poorly formed for both search terms and operators and so gives a misleadingly low number of hits. A properly formed search engine test would be Mims + Pianka which returns 9100 + hits, rather that his "Mims-Pianka+controversy". FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Non-trivial coverage in a number of reliable secondary sources. spryde | talk 14:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable; was notable, will remain notable. Notability does not degrade over time. Lawrence Cohen 16:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Filll (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Reasonably well-sourced. I would call it notable. Tim Ross·^talk 01:00, 8 December 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.