Talk:The Austringer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Austringer article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology .
Stub	rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

[edit] CSD and redirect?

I know I marked the page for deletion, but I've been thinking about it. I don't think the blog is notable enough on its own, but I think it'd be to move this text to the article on Wesley R. Elsberry and redirect this page to that. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the more notable science blogs in existence, particularly in the area of evolution and debate over intelligent design. It has been repeatedly referenced both inside Wikipedia as a reliable source and is used extensively by other media. Its author has played important roles in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and at the National Center for Science Education and is one of the national experts in this area. The author also maintains one of the most important resources in the creationism-evolution controversy, TalkOrigins, which is used in numerous college curricula. As such, the writings of its author, Dr. Welsley R. Elsberry are notable under WP:SPS, as are other important science blogs such as Panda's Thumb (weblog) and Pharyngula (blog) and Aetiology (blog).--Filll (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, 5 articles (and more to come) link to this article, which will be expected to grow. -Filll (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This article cites no secondary sources for why it's notable. Moreover, it does not satisfy any of the criteria on WP:WEB. On a personal note, I don't appreciate your comments on my talk page. Number of edits doesn't correspond to quality. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy after four minutes is asking for trouble, frankly. It is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Use your head here.--Filll (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable. Quick google search shows blog is being referenced 'everywhere' including tangential mentions in news articles. Article could do with more references. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can I have my say? Since you need a third opinion.... I say to leave at least a few days for Fill to find sources for notability. Looking at its incoming links [1] it looks to be linked heavily from evolution blogs, so, at least, it's not an unknown blog. Let's give Fill some time to fullfill WP:WEB criteria. If he doesn't find anything good enough, then the article can get merged into the autor's article, so the work done by Fill won't be lost. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's notable, period. No reason to delete or merge this article, move along. Odd nature (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI

I just found this exchange with the creator of the blog. The main text was provided by Wesley R. Elsberry himself. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that a conflict of interest? I chose to use his text. He did not post it. I did. He did not decide to make this article. I did. So what? If you think that the text should be changed, then we can do that. --Filll (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hardly conflict of interest. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Elsberry has long been careful to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, by avoiding directly editing any article that he is connected to, even remotely. In this instance, he offered language on talk, when requested, that another editor considered worth using as the basis of a stub-article. In doing this he has fully complied with both the letter and the spirit of WP:COI. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother. Give it a rest. There's no COI there. Odd nature (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)