Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:39, 7 October 2007

TrueOrigin Archive

TrueOrigin Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• 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)
• 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. 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)
      • Looks likeyou can contact them here --profg 03:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Um, that appears to be the contact page for http://www.lonestarwebworks.com . How is that connected? JoshuaZ 19:52, 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 20:16, 6 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:

• Professor David A. Plaisted, Dept. of Computer Science, UNC-Chapel Hill: "Links to Some Other Creation Sites"
• Sean DeVere Pitman, M.D., City of Hope National Medical Center: "Just a Few Links"
• Professor James R. Hofmann (and others), California State University Fullerton, "Philosophy/Liberal Studies 333: Evolution and Creation"
• Kevin Henke Ph.D., University of Kentucky - Geological Sciences, "Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology"
• Geoscience Research Institute, "Fundamentalist - Organizations"
• Professor David L. Carlson, Texas A&M Department of Anthropology, "Physical Anthropology"
• Professor James F. McGrath, Butler University Department of Philosophy & Religion, Religion & Science (RL 371): "Evolution, Creationism and Design"

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 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 ) and none from the ICR . 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)