Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrueOrigin Archive

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TrueOrigin Archive

TrueOrigin Archive (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Note to the closing adminstrator: Profg has engaged in apparent canvassing in this AfD. See [1] [2] [3] [4] which includes a number of users who have called for keeping below such as RucasHost. JoshuaZ 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to the closing administrator: As evidenced by the fact that a number of users whom I requested in a neutral way (you can see that's true by clicking on the links above) to look at this article and the AfD have called for deleting the article, this is patently untrue, and is another example of stalking and harassment by JoshuaZ. --profg Talk 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. Neutralitytalk 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, just as notable as its counterpart, as noted here. Literally hundreds of article and links, and referenced in relevant online literature. In existence for 15 years. Recommend giving article more of a chance than 2 minutes (which is what happened here) to be edited and improved. --profg 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete it uses itself as the majority of it's references.Ridernyc 20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

*Keep Great reference for silly Creationist arguments. It is notable, probably not as well-done as AnswersinGenesis, but it's a great location to find rebuttals to TalkOrigins. However, the article itself is poorly written, external links are kind of a repeat of itself, and it needs to somewhat resemble Answers in Genesis, which discusses that website better. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete Changed from above. I'm now unconvinced of notability. Points by MastCell and JoshuaZ are what convinced me. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm starting to get somewhat uncomfortable being the only non-Creationist opposed to deletion. The points by MastCell and JoshuaZ are valid. Unless someone shows a better level of notability, namely at the level of AnswerinGenesis, I'm going to have to change my stand. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, Google finds about 13,200 links and non-link references to TrueOrigin on other web sites. NCdave 15:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't obvious from his indentation, above, but if you look at the comment dates you'll see that Orangemarlin changed his recommendation from Keep to Strong Delete just one hour after, in answer to his question, I added the comment informing him that Google finds a whopping 13,200 references and links to TrueOrigin from other web sites. That seems odd to me. NCdave 18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever. I don't think google hits prove squat. I didn't even read what you wrote, because it wasn't relevant to my powerful and awesome ability to make up my own mind. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You didn't even read it? Then why did you ask for it? NCdave 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • delete This isn't notable. The "counterpart" the Talk Origins Archive has multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss it. The TrueOrigin Archive does not. It massively fails WP:WEB. If someone can find reliable sources that talk about it I will consider changing my position. JoshuaZ 20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Here you go, JoshuaZ. These are some books which reference the TrueOrigin web site, or material found on it:
  • "How Now Shall We Live?" by Charles Colson, Nancy Pearcey, p. 499
  • "The Big Argument: Twenty-Four Scholars Explore How Science, Archaeology, and Philosophy Have Proven the Existence of God," by John F. Ashton, Michael Westacott, p. 129
  • "Insect Evolutionary Ecology: Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society," by Mark Fellowes, Graham Holloway, Jens Rolff, p. 395
  • "Science and Evolution," by Charles W. Colson, Nancy Pearcey, p.183
  • "Intelligent Design Origin of Human Destiny," by Theodore A. Green,p. 212
  • "Researching Anthropology On The Internet," by David Lee Carlson, Wadsworth, p. 58
  • "Darwİnİzmİn İnsanliĞa GetİrdİĞİ Belalar," by Harun Yahya, p. 183
  • "Natural Theology," by William Paley, p. 290
  • "The Evolution Deceit," by Harun Yahya, p. 273
  • "Darwİnİzmİn Kanli İdeolojİsİ FaŞİzm," by Harun Yahya, p. 235
  • "Ara GeÇİŞ AÇmazi," by Harun Yahya, p.232
  • "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design," by Jonathan Wells
  • "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design," by Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross
NCdave 17:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
None of these are non-trivial independent reliable sources. Here we go in order.
  • How Now Shall We Live? - the entire mention is that a certain essay has a copy there. In what is essentially an apologetic book. Appears to be more of a polemic than a reliable source.
  • The Big Argument - same thing as above
  • Now we get to an actual paper. Actual science paper referencing a page in TrueOrigin (actually the same essay by Jonathan Wells as mentioned by "ow Now Shall We Live? - simply using it as a note that certain types of creationist arguments exist and not for anything else.
  • Next another reference by the same people (Nancy Pearcey and Charles W. Colson) to the same paper as from the first one.
  • Intelligent Design Origin of Human Destiny again just a minor reference to a report, and the book in question appears to be published by a vanity press anyways (I could be wrong but it looks like that to me).
  • Researching Anthropology On The Internet - uses it as an example of a creationist website along with many others, nothing more.
  • Next is by Harun Yahya(Oktar) - another creationist citing them. Harun Yahya is not a reliable source as you can see from reading our article on him. He is a holocaust denier whose views can be summarized as something like "The Holocaust didn't happen and the Nazis did it because they believed in evolution". That might be actually more coherent than his description. In any event, not a reliable source and not used as more than a minor citation.
  • Natural Theology I was a bit surprised to see this on the list since William Paley died in 1905. Apparently an updated version of his book includes a list of modern creationist websites at the end which includes TrueOrigins.
  • Next are two more incidental mentions by Harun Yahya.
  • The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design - the only mentions in that book if I recall is Wells citing his own essay on their.
  • Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design Oh, wow. We've now hit something that might be a reliable source. That's a rarity in this list. Unfortunately, if I recall correctly ( the text isn't online and I read the book a few years ago) Forrest and Gross briefly mention True Origins as an example of how some proponents of Intelligent Design also put out essays on avowedly creationist websites. Wow, so we now have one minor factoid about the website from 13 books. That was a good use of my time. In the future could you please look at the sources before giving them to us to look at? JoshuaZ 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems as notable as Talk Origins. In fact, Talk Origins links to and has responses to True Origins. Jinxmchue 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Miserably fails WP:WEB, WP:ORG, or for that matter whichever set of notability criteria you choose to apply to it.A self-referential rehash of the website which provides no secondary sources, independent commentary, analysis, or anything that would make it encyclopedic. Delete unless non-trivial independent, reliable secondary source coverage can be produced. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in the first place, but even if it were, comparing this to TalkOrigins Archive is ludicrous - that site has been noted by the National Academy of Sciences, the Smithsonian, Scientific American, mentioned in college textbooks, etc. This one is not in the same league notability-wise. MastCell Talk 21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think I've located a page that reveals compliance with WP:WEB, namely, this page concerning criticisms of trueOrigins. It seems like there's indeed been multiple, "reliable" published works criticizing various things on TrueOrigins. Why this isn't mentioned in the article, I don't know, because it probably should be. Homestarmy 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That's in reference to people criticizing Humphreys' views which were not published on the True Origins Archive anyways, just Humphrey's response. Even if Humphreys' original comments had been put on TrueOrigins, that would simply be a possible argument to note that at Russell Humphreys. JoshuaZ 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed; these are criticisms of Russell Humphreys which happen to be collected on TrueOrigins - not evidence that the site is independently notable. MastCell Talk 23:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Further follow-up, none of those criticisms appear to be from reliable sources either anyways. So we really don't have a leg to stand on. JoshuaZ 00:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails notability criteria. Yilloslime (t) 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete (changed from "Delete.") Herculean efforts by profg, NCdave, OrangeMarlin and others have failed to find any sources establishing notability as defined by WP:N and WP:WEB.Yilloslime (t) 19:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Follow-up: See, this is what I'm talking about. Most of what is being discussed here are issues for improving the article, and should be discussed on the Talk page, not on an AfD page that was posted TWO MINUTES after this article was created. I've never seen even a stub AfD'd two minutes after it was created; in fact, most stubs are tagged asking for editors to help improve them. Seriously, why not KEEP this article for at least a week or two, try to help the WP project by improving it, and if it's hopelessly non-improveable and non-notable, toss it on Darwin's dustbin of history? --profg 02:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Lack of sources is a reason to delete, and I looked for additional sources before I made my comment. I can't speak for others. But the sourcing necessary simply doesn't exist. JoshuaZ 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If true, that will be borne out in time. Putting this up for deletion 1-2 minutes after it was first created when it's obvious this isn't a disruptive article is ridiculous. It almost seems to me that some people are trying to get a quick delete even though the article doesn't meet the criteria for that (thus, they are using this to get around that fact). Jinxmchue 02:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
      • This isn't a speedy deletion by any stretch of the imagination. This discussion won't even be closed for another 5 days at least. And in the meantime, you are welcome to look for additional sources. And you can be assured that you will not be the only person looking for sources. I'm currently looking at their page to try to find a way to contact TrueOrigins to ask if their are any sources they are aware of (at present I'm having some difficulty finding anything other than the feedback button which appears to be only rarely payed attention to and isn't precisely appropriate for this given their feedback guidelines). But again, there appears to be very little to go on, even AIG's webpage only has a handful of mentions of TrueOrigins, and even then they are all of the it-exists form. JoshuaZ 03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't say this was a speedy deletion. I said this seems to have been done to get around the speedy deletion criteria as the article doesn't fit any of them. I just can't think of any other reason for someone to have nominated this article so quickly after it was created. Within two minutes. Hardly enough time to thoroughly check for reliable sources. Jinxmchue 07:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The AfD nomination certainly was rapid. That said, the burden is generally on the creator of an article (or supporters of its existence) to be able to provide evidence of notability at the time the article is created. MastCell Talk 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I did in about two minutes. It eventually was rewritten and moved to a better article. I can't find anything to back this site's notability up (IE, Reliable Sources). Spryde 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Since we're apparently using this page instead of the talk page to discuss the article, here's some "multiple, independent reliable sources" that link to the True.Origin Archive:

I'm just throwing some out there that I hit with a quick search. There are criticisms there, supports, straight links, etc. But I believe there is at least notability, for it to be linked to by reliable sources. --profg 04:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment.Even with these links, it still fails WP:WEB. Yilloslime (t) 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with Yillo here. The first two links are merely lists that include TrueOrigins on lists of creationist pages (nor for that matter are either of those links reliable sources but rather private webpages). The third link appears to contain a link to TrueOrigins as one of many creationist sites noted in what appears to be a course syllabus. The fourth link is a criticism of an essay on the site and is hosted on a geocities website. Hardly reliable. The fifth link is again a page that simply includes TrueOrigins as a link on a list of creationist pages. The sixth link may arguably be a reliable source and is by a anthropology professor at Texas A&M. However, the only additional sentence of content there other than the existence of TrueOrigins is that the website "takes direct aim at Talk.Origins" which isn't a whole lot of content (hardly a non-trivial source). The final link again simply contains a link among a list of links. None of these are independent, non-trivial reliable sources. JoshuaZ 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep a notable creationist site. Widely referred to , as it ought to be , because it contains a collection of relative straightforward, intelligent, understandable documentation of that point of view--to the extent that it depends on their interpretations of science. DGG (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment:If it's widely referred to, I have no problem keeping it. I just haven't seen evidence thus far that it is widely referred to by reliable, notable sources. MastCell Talk 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • comment It is not that widely referred to nor is it at all prominent in the creationist movement. For example, it gets a total about 10 mentions on AIG's webpage (see [5] [6] ) and none from the ICR [7] [8]. AIG is a notable creationist ministry, as is the ICR. Both have multiple independent, reliable sources. Similarly for Kent Hovind's ministry. True Origins is not notable. There's simply nothing we can write about it other than its existence that complies with WP:V. JoshuaZ 23:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Josh and MastCell. •Jim62sch• 15:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. See wikipedia's own definitions of notability for the purpose of the relevant criteria for keep or not: "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations....."
..And certainly I have seen that it is prominently notable among those who despise it. Those who so vehemently object here to its inclusion are testament to their own desire to reduce its visibility, because they have noted TrueOrigins.com most emphatically. So they are another evidence in favor of its inclusion. TruthTeller 15:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC) — TruthTeller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment The above !vote from "TruthTeller" was actually added by User:24.127.209.207. It's the first edit from that IP. TruthTeller has 3 edits. Yilloslime (t) 15:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Does not rise to the standards of WP:WEB. ScienceApologist 00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of the sources in the article are from the website itself. The additional sources offered in this discussion don't appear to meet the reliable sources guideline, and my google searching didn't turn up any better sources. No prejudice against recreation if the site becomes more notable at a later time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is a great website, and is certainly very notable. I was actually just there earlier today reading an essay by Dr. Jerry Bergman on the creation of pathogenic viruses. It's highly obvious that this AFD is POV motivated, I can't think of any good reason to delete. --RucasHost 03:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh say, like the complete absence of reliable sources that might show it meets WP:WEB. A little AGF might be in order, just maybe? Especially given your editing history and user page. You know, glass houses, stone throwing and all that... Oh and while we're at it- a website being useful or "great" has nothing to do with notability. I visit a lot of websites daily that are great and useful, that doesn't mean they should have articles. JoshuaZ 03:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • JoshuaZ, please be careful not to attack fellow editors, especially for something that has nothing to do with the present discussion. WP:NPA states, "some types of comments are never acceptable," including "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme... Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done... It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Please, always assume good faith. Thank you. --profg Talk 05:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Sigh, I think Profg in this case you may want to a) reread my comment or b) reread NPA (including the section you just quoted). It might in fact be best to do both. JoshuaZ 14:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Sigh, I think JoshuaZ in this case you may want to a) reread your comment ("Especially given your editing history and user page") or b) reread NPA in light of that comment (especially the section I quoted). It might in fact be best to do both. --profg Talk 16:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
        • This isn't that complicated. The user in question said "It's highly obvious that this AFD is POV motivated" which is a failure to assume AGF. My observation is that given the user's own statements if we start not assuming AGF it hits him pretty badly. Since I am, of course, assuming AGF, I haven't concluded the user, or any other user in this discussion is calling for keeping or deletion based on their POV. Now, if you are still convinced that I'm somehow magically engaging in personal attacks here, I suggest you continue the discussion on my talk page, since this is rapidly becoming irrelevant to the issue at hand- whether or not there are reliable sources that discuss the website in question. JoshuaZ 16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this was a case of not AGF, rather it was drawing the obvious conclusion from the fact that the AfD was posted just two minutes after the article it proposed to delete. Two minutes is not enough time to have even carefully read the article, let along the subject of the article. Perhaps the editor who proposed the article for deletion was already thoroughly familiar with the subject of the article, but, if so, that, itself, is strong evidence of notability. NCdave 19:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not even close to as notable as ICR, AiG or AiC. Maybe if it lasts another fifteen years someone might be bothered to write an independent non-trivial review, but until then there's no good reason to keep this article around.  –  ornis⚙ 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A non-notable person gets into an argument with an un-named relative, posts his side of the argument online, and then makes it "a web page in hopes of reaching a few other readers." Nothing follows that establishes notability. No numbers. No sponsors. No references in any major publications? Randydeluxe 07:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep This is not notable? I thought it was. Lets find some references to show that it is.--Filll 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete completely inadequate references, the only non-self reference seems to be a self published post from a talk.origins newsgroup of Feb. 17, 1999 – that does not look credible as a reliable source. Better secondary sources needed. .. dave souza, talk 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Irony To all of you darwinists who hate creationism and would love nothing more than to delete this article. You might actually be helping the creationists at TrueOrigin Archive, you see when people search for "True Origins" in Google, the TrueOrigin Archive comes up as the first result; however, Wikipedia gets very good search placement and if this article stays there's a good chance it could replace the actual website for the first spot in Google. So by deleting this article you're getting people to go to a site on creationism instead of a Wikipedia article about a site on creationism. --RucasHost 19:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? The deletion debate is about notability vs non-notability, and the availability of reliable sources, related to this one web site. It doesn't have anything to do with hating creationism. I hope it doesn't have anything to do with your liking creationism, either, and that your vote is related to your ability to find reliable sources that show notability for this one web site. If anyone is voting on this one web site based on how much they like or dislike the general field of study, then they're completely missing the point of the discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Now THAT is funny, considering most of the "votes" here. --profg Talk 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Now I'm really confused. I looked at your vote, for instance, and it didn't even address the question of whether or not there are reliable sources. Are you accusing yourself of POV voting? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Profg and Rucas- this is precisely why I called for AGF earlier. Profg, you seem to be acting almost as bad a Rucas. As to accusations that there are "POV-warriors" here calling for deletion, note that Filll who is often accused of being some sort of evilutionist was in favor of considering keeping, as was Orangemarlin. This isn't a deletion being orchestrated by an evolutionist cabal. At minimum, if there is a cabal here, it is a damn incompetent one. JoshuaZ 20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Evilutionist I'm not sure if you misspelled that intentionally or not, but I am not going to use it widely. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Digression: Evil-ution is a charming coinage that dates back at least to Inherit the Wind. It probably goes back even further. Of course, history repeats itself. MastCell Talk 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No disagreement on that statement here. --profg Talk 20:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There are no votes, it's a discussion, or at least it's supposed to be. --RucasHost 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Fisher's comment is just as valid without the use of some pretentious neologism like not-vote or ~vote or whatever is the current style du jour. In fact, the non-voting nature of the matter makes Fisher's point all the stronger. JoshuaZ 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, while I fully support Wikipedia's model of consensus for discussion rather than majority voting, I find constructions like !vote to be confusing for users who aren't experienced Wikipedians, and I try to keep my comments simple enough that users who aren't members of the cabal can still understand and participate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The "irony" in the leadoff statement here is predicated on the assumption that everyone's top priority is to advance a specific POV above all else. I'm fully aware of the power of Wikipedia's search-engine ranking, but you'll notice that most of the comments have to do with notability, not hatred of creationism. The only irony here is that User:RucasHost's comment says far more about how s/he views Wikipedia than it does about anything else. MastCell Talk 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have no dog in this fight, and I find young-earth creationist arguments unpersuasive, but there really is no question that the TrueOrigin website easily meets Wikipedia's notability critera. Google finds over 8300 links to articles on the TrueOrgin.org web site from other web sites. NCdave 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My google search only yielded 177 links, many of them from the same websites, and most of them from blogs. How did you do yours? Either way, google hits/links does not establish notability. Yilloslime (t) 21:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I did mine like this, which yielded about 1000 hits, but I didn't find reliable sources among the hits, either. I'd be interested in what reliable sources you found, and your methods, because I always like learning new tricks for uncovering sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, Google is acting weird today. As it did yesterday, my google search yields "Results 1 - 10 of about 8,330 for link:*.trueorigin.org -site:trueorigin.org" That would be 8300+ links to the TrueOrigin.org web site from other web sites. (But here's the weirdness: today it is only actually showing a few of them; I don't think it was doing that yesterday, or if it was I didn't notice it.) NCdave 14:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • When I searched for both links and non-link references to TrueOrigin from other web sites, Google said it found about 13,200 hits. Note that this does not include references on the TrueOrigin.org web site, itself, only references on other web sites. NCdave 15:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - I was contacted on my talk page by profg for input. This article seems to be mainly sourced by primary self-published sources, afoul of the last criteria of WP:SELFPUB. If there were one or two secondary independent sources, such as a newspaper article which this website was the main subject of, or even a significant subject of, I could be convinced to switch to a keep. - Crockspot 22:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, I got three google news archive hits, but one is a LTTE, and the other two are blog posts. - Crockspot 22:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A sorry little website, like many another feeble-minded blog. No notability established, or establishable. For a website that has allegedly been around since 1997, it has attracted remarkably little attention - almost no Google hits. I can think of many (many, many) really useful websites with far greater importance and influence that do not have their own wikipedia articles (yes, I know, I should go ahead and start articles on them). Snalwibma 07:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, Snalwibma, refrain from personal attacks and gratuitous insults. "Feeble-minded?" Really, it is sufficient to say that you disagree with them, or (as I did) that you find their arguments unpersuasive. Also, calling it a "blog" site seems to be just another insult. I doubt that you really think that it is a blog. Also, I don't think 13,200 is "almost no Google hits." NCdave 15:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • A few comments. First, note that NPA doesn't refer to insulting websites or such, but to other Wikipedia users. I don't see a negative connotation to blog per se and am puzzled as to why you see one, but in any event, the website does bear a strong resemblance to a group blog. As to the google hit number, that isn't terribly relevant if we don't have reliable sources and in any event since it is a website the cruft multiple is of course going to be high. JoshuaZ 15:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. (1) No personal attack in what I said! (2) If others are allowed to support their "keep" arguments with baseless comments that it's "a great website", surely I am equally entitled to express my contrary opinion. (3) In Google, "trueorigin archive" gets about 700. "trueorigin" gets 14,000, but it's nearly all cruft, consisting of self-references and mentions in blogs etc. (4) And, yes, it is blog-like. Or, if you prefer, a soapbox.Snalwibma 15:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
(1&2) Web sites do not have minds, feeble or otherwise. To refer to it as "feeble-minded" indicates that you think its authors and fans are feeble-minded. Even if you do, it is impolite to say so. I'm sure that you can find more civil ways to express your disagreements.
(3) You are mistaken, snalwibma. That 13,200 hits includes no self-references at all, because I explicitly excluded them from the search. That's why I wrote, "this does not include references on the TrueOrigin.org web site, itself, only references on other web sites." That's the purpose of the "-site:trueorigin.org" clause in the google search. If you leave out that clause, you get about 14,700 hits. The differences is 10.2% -- which doesn't seem like "nearly all" to me. As for how many of them are mentions in blogs, I don't know, because I don't have the time to look at 13,200 links (but Josuha sees no negative connotation to blogs, anyhow). But even if all of them were references on blogs, that would still be more than sufficient to establish notability. You called it "almost no Google hits," but, truly, I think 13,200 is a lot of references. NCdave 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I know I've asked this before, but since I couldn't find the reliable sources in the google search myself, and since you appear satisfied that you have found them, could you just post links to the three best articles about the web site that you found? I'd love to change my mind in this discussion; I always feel good about being able to save an article from deletion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: While blog doesn't have negative connotation by itself, blogs are not reliable sources. And no number of unreliable sources is sufficient if we have no reliable sources. We could have Graham's Number of google hits and if none of them we're reliable are hands would be tied becuase there'd be nothing we could write about it that was compliant with WP:V/WP:OR. JoshuaZ 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I was being a bit rude about the site (and, by implication, about its creators and contributors). If you are reading this, I apologise for any offence I may have caused. And I was indeed a bit offhand in my "no google hits" comment. But I really really cannot find any worthwhile things about trueorigin.org, other than cruft on blogs and discussion groups. Excluding wikipedia and trueorigin itself, the first ten items thrown up by a google search for "trueorigin archive" (which seems a fair enough search, given that it is precisely the name of the wikipedia article in question) are: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. OK - not quite ten, but enough... I may have overstated it initially, but this little exercise confirms my first impression - it's a trivial website with no great influence or notability. Snalwibma 17:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Note - those ten-or-so links were provided by me in support of my "non-notable" contention. I hope you didn't waste too much time on them! We are still waiting for NCdave to provide the three reliable sources to demonstrate notability... Snalwibma 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops. I missed the point you were making. No, I didn't have to do more than glance at them. Shall I delete my error, or let it stand to further make the point that the google hits are not reliable sources? Sorry for accusing you of insufficient comprehension of the policy; this discussion has gotten a bit complicated for me and I lost track of who was trying to prove what. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, please let it stand. it's much more fun this way... Snalwibma —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the engineers' proof that all odd numbers are prime: 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, yep, all odd numbers are prime. That's 9 down, 13,191 to go, but never mind, they're all cruft. NCdave 18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean that you couldn't find the ones that were reliable sources, either? I'm sorry; you must be disappointed, after seeming so sure that there were some. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry if I was unclear. It means that the folks why say all the references to TrueOrigin.org are cruft are stating a conclusion which is unwarranted by the evidence. They obviously haven't looked at even 1% of the references. That is consistent with the pattern established at the very beginning of the AfD, with its creation just 2 minutes after the creation of the article in question: 2 minutes is obviously insufficient time for the article to have been carefully read, let along the subject of the article. NCdave 19:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did look at the google results. Not at all 1000 hits, of course, but certainly at the first five or six pages. And I didn't find any reliable sources among them. If you think they're there, I'm afraid the burden is on you to prove it. Without those reliable sources, no amount of google-hit-counting will help your argument, and I'd be glad to see the reliable sources discovered so we could save this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I am obviously not going to look at 13,200 Google hits. But given the way that Google ranks hits, I reckon a sample of the FIRST NINE out of 13,200 is a reasonable way to gauge Google-notability. But please do tell us - which of the remaining 13,191 are reliable independent sources? Snalwibma 07:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I really wanted this to be kept (per OrangeMarlin's original thinking), so I tried hard to find a reliable source! And just as Snalwibma, I can't find anything satisfying "nontrivial coverage in a reliable source" In contrast to the books that mention talk.origins, I couldn't find a single mention of this web-site in a even a news search. So please, if there is any substantial coverage of this site in print, that is, anything in a reliable source that discusses this site (as opposed to just link to it), then please add it to the article. I think having a NPOV article on this site would be useful, but that is only possible if there is nontrivial independent coverage somewhere... --Merzul 17:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Merzul, your Google book search link finds 46 books that mention TalkOrigins. I just posted a list of 13 books that mention TrueOrigin. Now, granted, 46 is greater than 13, but the numbers are close enough that I wonder how many book references you think it takes to be evidence of notability? NCdave 18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Only two or three, if they actually discuss the book rather than just mentioning it. Have you read any of these books? Do any of them discuss the book at length or in detail? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, it is really very simple. If any of those book discuss the web-site in any length, then please summarize what the book says, and add it as a source to the article. If you get two or three of such mentions, then I will change my votes. Even something as short as this, is something that can be used as a source. Do we have anything? But don't expect anyone to weed through this discussion here, if you find anything, add it to the article! --Merzul 19:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Boy, I don't envy the poor admin who has to read this mess and determine consensus. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


But, how are we to use them in the article? The notability guidelines are based on the real principles of verifiability and neutral point of view. The reason we need these sources is not to just count them, but to be able to write an encyclopaedic article. What are we to make of these sources? This sources can as far as I have looked at them, only be used to say that "The web-site has been listed in Paley's book in a list of evolution related web-sites together with the Discovery Institute"? In any case, I suggest trying to use these sources to write the article, then whether we have non-trivial coverage in independent sources is immediately obvious. --Merzul 19:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Merzul. See in any event my item by item discussion above. JoshuaZ 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The Forrester & Gross reference could actually be useful, and would give a little balance to the article, not sure that is enough to then only rely on true.origins itself. I think your analysis is probably right, these sources will do little to help writing the article, but I did my best, and added the Paley ref :) --Merzul 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Added ref from Fellowes as well, will keep looking and adding. Thanks. --profg Talk 20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: actually, the arguments to keep are specifically addressing notability. (Of course, all of that should have been addressed on the Talk page before an AfD was initiated, but hey, who can do that in less than two minutes?) --profg Talk 01:41, 9 October 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.