Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Darwin Central"

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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Darwin Central"

Article on a joke about darwinism that came up in a webforum. JoaoRicardotalk 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If there's somehing worth, merge it into Free Republic then. Pavel Vozenilek 01:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ut supra Sceptre (Talk) 12:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete I'm a pretty regular crawler of websites related to the debate (pharyngula, pandasthumb et al) and I've not seen it mentioned. Seems to be an in-joke that has not escaped to the outside world MNewnham 14:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Author's reply: MNewnham seems to be correct. I've been informed over the past few years of some mentions other than on FreeRepublic, but I can't seem to locate any. So your judgment will have to be based on the visibility of the FreeRepublic site, and the culture war significance (and other virtues) of the article itself. PatrickHenry-FR 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete then flamegrill and feed to hungry badgers. Utter garbage. Cynical 14:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into cabal --SockpuppetSamuelson 15:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable spoof unless good, verifiable references to mainstream sources are provided showing widespread recognition of the importance of this spoof. I note that (at least) the first hundred Google hits on Darwin Central are all references to a hotel in Darwin, Australia. Although the first paragraph of the article does identify it as a spoof, the unreasonable length and detail suggest that the purpose of the article is to publish and promote the spoof , not to document and explain its alleged significance in the culture wars. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, just about nobody would ever look it up. Merge a few lines into Free Republic if you really like it. Stifle 13:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Author's Defense (posted after just the first three comments):

Gentlemen, it's my article, I'm newly registered, and you are correct in noting that "Darwin Central" is most definitely a spoof.

However, for the past four years Darwin Central has played a definite role in the creationism-evolution arena of the culture wars on Free Republic, which is a very high-visibility website. Thousands of posters and "lurkers" are exposed to Darwin Central's "existence" and views each day in threads where evolution is debated. So it's not just a joke that came up one day. Darwin Central has become a fictional, but functional label for the numerous defenders of science literacy (evolution specifically) in a key sector of conservative internet chat. It's become a feature of the culture war.

Also, Darwin Central isn't just one person's plaything (although I am the Grand Master's spokesman). Dozens of science-literate posters on Free Republic all participate in maintaining its existence, and it's been occasionally mentioned on other websites where the evolution-creationism issue gets discussed. As spoofs go, this one is "real."

It's true that Darwin Central hasn't achieved the notariety of other spoofs, such as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism," which certainly deserves its place in Wikipedia. So you could delete "Darwin Central" because it's not a major phenomenon. Or you can let Darwin Central remain, because it does play an important and visible role in a serious issue of our times.

It's a judgment call. I understand that you don't want too much of this kind of thing in Wikipedia. On the other hand, you already have some, so where do you draw the line? I'm hoping you'll let "Darwin Central" in before you shut the door. It's well done (he modestly said), it's been around since 2002, and it really has enjoyed high visibility.

If you leave the article on Wikipedia, I strongly suggest that you invoke the protection feature to lock the article, because experience shows that it will probably attract some vandalism, and you folks have enough work to do.

PatrickHenry-FR 13:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue here is not the nature of the article. We can have articles on parodies, spoofs, conspiration theories, hoaxes etc, as long as they are notable. We have no evidence that this thing has gone beyond one single webforum. I am not saying that Free Republic is not an important forum. What I am saying is that this does not constitute notability. It could be mentioned in the Free Republic article, if it is an important aspect of that forum. JoaoRicardotalk 18:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Free Republic and delete. I've never heard of this in my years on Usenet and dozens of various boards. If it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia, it should probably be merged. - CorbinSimpson 18:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Edit: The two pages aren't even linked! The author should pay more attention to his contributions.
  • Author's reply to CorbinSimpson: I've changed my external links to the FreeRepublic website into internal links to the Wikipedia article on that site. Very good suggestion. I don't think I should edit the FreeRepublic article to mention "Darwin Central" until the status of "Darwin Central" as a stand-alone item is resolved. PatrickHenry-FR 19:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Author's thoughts on merging: I've looked at the Free Republic article. The "Darwin Central" material would almost surely overwhelm it. You know what's appropriate far better than I do, but from what I've read here about merging articles, it's mostly done to transfer a short article into a longer one. A link from the Free Republic article is certainly called for; but I respectfully suggest that merger is an unreasonable solution in this case, where my article (a spoof that arose on Free Republic), would become the largest portion of the Free Republic article. PatrickHenry-FR 21:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note- I'd just like to point out for our newer member here that we all understand your intent with this "Author's Note" section, but being the author does not give you any special privliages in regard to this article. You released your work under the GFDL, which means any of us can change, move, use or anything else to the text. You are now the sole contributor, but that can change, and it gives you no added voice to the AfD. -AKMask 21:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Author's reply to AKMask: Understood. Upon posting, the work is no longer mine. I see that the article has recently been edited so that only the first paragraph remains, and the editor also changed even that a bit. There's really not much left of the original submission for me to talk about. This has been a very educational experience. PatrickHenry-FR 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • PatrickHenry, I hope you stay here even if this article gets deleted. You are a good writer and a polite person. JoaoRicardotalk 04:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Author's reply to JoaoRicardo: Thanks. Your comments have been most helpful. I've had several things professionally published, both fiction and non-fiction, so I'm quite familiar with the editorial process, and also (alas) with rejection. I don't take this stuff personally; and I always play by the rules. From the viewpoint of a writer, however, the Wiki-world is different. Very different. PatrickHenry-FR 12:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Author's acquiescence

There is an apparent consensus to delete the item. It's been edited down to virtually nothing, and there's really not much left to merge. If I were to add something about this topic to the article on Free Republic it would be entirely different. There seems to be no reason to continue debating. I agree that the article should be deleted; and I appreciate everyone's input. PatrickHenry-FR 15:37, 26 December 2005 (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.