Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/TrueOrigin Archive: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:14, 5 October 2007 editMastCell (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →TrueOrigin Archive: agreed← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:28, 5 October 2007 edit undoOrangemarlin (talk \| contribs)30,771 edits →TrueOrigin Archive: ThoughtsNext edit →
Line 5:		Line 5:
	*'''Strong Delete''' it uses itself as the majority of it's references.] 20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)		*'''Strong Delete''' it uses itself as the majority of it's references.] 20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Keep''' Great reference for silly ] 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 ], which discusses that website better. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)		*'''Keep''' Great reference for silly ] 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 ], which discusses that website better. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:51, 5 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. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
	*'''delete''' This isn't notable. The "counterpart" the ] has multiple, independent ] that discuss it. The TrueOrigin Archive does not. It massively fails ]. If someone can find reliable sources that talk about it I will consider changing my position. ] 20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)		*'''delete''' This isn't notable. The "counterpart" the ] has multiple, independent ] that discuss it. The TrueOrigin Archive does not. It massively fails ]. If someone can find reliable sources that talk about it I will consider changing my position. ] 20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Keep''' Seems as notable as Talk Origins. In fact, Talk Origins links to and has responses to True Origins. ] 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)		*'''Keep''' Seems as notable as Talk Origins. In fact, Talk Origins links to and has responses to True Origins. ] 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:28, 5 October 2007

TrueOrigin Archive

Delete, non-notable. Neutrality 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 20:51, 5 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 23:28, 5 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)
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 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 23:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)