| Revision as of 02:39, 6 October 2007 editJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 edits reply to Profg← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:56, 6 October 2007 edit undoJinxmchue (talk | contribs)1,677 edits →TrueOrigin ArchiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| *'''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 ] 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? --] 02:21, 6 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 ] 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? --] 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. Byt the sourcing necessary simply doesn't exist. ] 02:39, 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. Byt the sourcing necessary simply doesn't exist. ] 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). ] 02:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:56, 6 October 2007
TrueOrigin Archive
- TrueOrigin Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete Fails notability criteria. Yilloslime (t) 23:51, 5 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. Byt 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)