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 20:59, 5 October 2007 editJoshuaZ (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 edits →TrueOrigin Archive: delete← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:59, 5 October 2007 edit undoJoshuaZ (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 edits →TrueOrigin Archive: clarifyNext 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)
	*'''delete''' This isn't notable. The "counterpart" the ] has multiple, independent ] that discuss it. The TrueOrigin Archive does not. It massively fails ]. ] 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)

Revision as of 20:59, 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)
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)