Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lie: Evolution

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 Keep Gnangarra 13:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Lie: Evolution

The Lie: Evolution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable book by creationist Ken Ham. Lacks sources, reviews, and any proof of notablity. Paper45tee (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, 10 Google news hits, two from Skeptic. Cited by 16 other creationist books, which was enough to raise an eyebrow. This book is much more significant in its field than the run-of-the-mill YEC stuff. Notable on both sides of the controversy, but needs that to be fleshed out in the article itself. JJB 19:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Somewhat reluctantly, since I vigorously disagree with the book's premise. But I have to agree that it is notable in its field. This article needs a lot of fleshing out, keeping WP:NPOV firmly in mind. Comment - it has already survived one AfD discussion here. Plvekamp (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ken Ham. He's notable (as the foregoing ghits attest) but not everything he writes is ipso facto notable. Although two years ago's afd closed as keep, no valid reason was given in that discussion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note:due to an apparent move of the page since the previous Afd, the first one is actually here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lie Evolution. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - For a book published in 1987, and an article in existence since May 2006, this article has zero establishment of notability in third party sources. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per reasons above. Notable book both in Christian circles as well as secular (criticized in areas such as the Skeptic Magazine articles). It may have been published in 1987 but it is still in print, popular and widely available. Flesh out the article and make sure it stays NPOV, but keep it. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion To all the users asserting keep because of notability, instead of just stating it for an article that has existed since May 2006, you have to show it. Add references and third party sources. Otherwise, this article cannot be kept on the basis of it's current unsourced state, it is little more than an unreferenced stub and free web hosting for the author. It is not acceptable just to state 'yeah I know this book it's famous'. MickMacNee (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There is still not a SINGLE source in the article that asserts why this should be kept. Paper45tee (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be fairly notable and well known, judging from Google hits. I've added a couple of review links (one pro, one con) to the article as evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Editors using a google hit count as a justification for keep appear to be missing the point. A google hit count says nothing about an article, but only (somewhat) about suitability for inclusion of the topic.
    While the topic of the article may be an appropriate subject for a WP article, the article still needs to assert that notability itself.
    But the article on the book does not do that. Instead, it is an advert, with no *assertion* of the subject's importance, and with no sources.
    The article should then either be deleted, or be turned into a suitably encyclopedic article (to include incorporating references to it as sources). Wikipedia is also not a linkfarm, and as long as the article's author(s) can't be bothered to summarize what has been written about that book, the article is just spam and deserves to be deleted/merged with Ken Ham. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Response to Fullstop I assume your meant me when you say "editors" above. I have now added a Synopsis and criticism section to the article, with appropriate references, which I believe makes it more encyclopedic and speaks to the notability of the book. I believe it is better to improve the quality of our articles than to take cheap shots from the sidelines. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks Gandalf! For "editors" plural, at least three editors have forgotten the principle that notability is established on what can be sourced, not on what has been sourced. People who want to argue about what has been sourced simply add tags, instead of going to AFD. JJB 21:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't refer to any editor in particular -- its not my style. But Gandalf61 apparently got the message, as the article is no longer mere spamcruft.
        With respect to JJB's assumption that "notability is established on what can be sourced [and] not has been sourced," I must draw attention to Wikipedia policies on sourcing, OR and NOT.
        An author who can't be bothered to say anything substantial, and then provide only an advert blurb as a mere EL (not even as a source), is begging that the article be K-lined. Nowadays anyway (not 2006).
        But this AfD has done what AfDs are meant to do -- which is to determine whether any other editor cares enough about an article to make a go of it, and which Gandalf61 has done. So no need for anyone to get huffy about it. Of course, notability and encyclopedic merit has still not been asserted, but thats a different story. (see below). -- Fullstop (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As the article now stands, I think the book easily clears the notability bar. Tim Ross (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Notability is something that others provide, e.g. through acknowledgment (positive as well as negative) in book reviews or the like -- i.e. the work (or whatever) has been noted.
      In the case of this book, an assertion of notability might read something like this: The book has been through E editions/has been sold N times,[refs] has been translated into L languages. The book has been cited[refs] in numerous discussions of "Intelligent Design," and in N, reviewer R observed "..."[refs] Notability is not something that WP editors can be arbiters of, least of all using a web hit count (think OR). The easiest way to assert notability is to use sources, i.e. to have content, i.e. be encyclopedic. An article that uses sources to summarize what others say (of the subject) automatically asserts notability of the subject.
      It quite simple really, and doesn't even require personal judgment because the "notability bar" is altogether objective. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • See also "Notability requires objective evidence", or any essay listed under WP:NOTABILITY#See also, or Notability fallacies, particularly WP:GOOGLEHITS. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2008 (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.