Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True.Origin Archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True.Origin Archive

Obscure creationist website, unaffiliated to any major creationist group. Appears to mainly republish articles previously appearing in more prominent Creationist publications. At time of nomination the article is almost solely sourced to the website itself (sole exceptions are two citation to TalkOrigins Archive pages, neither of which gives more than a bare mention of the website or its creator). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found one reliable source here - they were mentioned in Library Journal. Other than that, I've searched and I can't find anything else that justifies inclusion. I'll hold off voting and see if anyone else can find sources, but I don't think this mention gives it notability on its own. Graymornings_(talk) 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found some weird reviews in Library Journal clearly written by people who weren't familiar with the subject of the book. dougweller (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it's a prominent trade journal and counts as a reliable source. I don't, however, think that this one mention makes the site notable - in fact, no assertion of notability is even claimed in the article. Graymornings_(talk) 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've researched enough into the site that I can safely vote delete. Doesn't look like any other sources are forthcoming, and the article still doesn't claim any notability beyond being mentioned by Talk.origins. Graymornings_(talk) 02:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable website. Schuym1 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only creationary website that talk.origins bothers to respond to. It has many links to replies and rebuttals on True.origins. True.Origins houses articles specifically written to rebut Talk.Origins written by members of the major creationary groups. It also has guest articles written by the same authors and many others of most prominent creationary organizations. While it is not affiliated with any major creationary group, in order to post most of the guest articles it must have approval from the organizations. This proposal is nothing less that blatant, biased, censorship. Christian Skeptic (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Being mentioned by a notable web site doesn't make this particular web site notable. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on notable creationist sources; this one just happens not to be notable. Think before you accuse Wikipedia users of censorship. It's simply policy. We'd do the same for any non-notable site. Graymornings_(talk) 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Skeptic, do you mean the Talk.Origins Archive? They have rebuttals of claims made on several websites besides True.Origin, so that doesn't make True.Origin special in any way.Sjö (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , major website , perhaps, as mentioned just above, the major one of its sort. As an incidental issue, keeping information about it here makes many of the WP discussions on this topic more manageable. DGG (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a list. It's hardly mentioned anywhere by either creationist or science websites. Seriously, this is just not notable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adds no information not already available within other wikipedia articles. Babakathy (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This is an article about a website that presents arguments against another website (in terms of its own publicity e.g. Wallace). I do not see how it meets any notabilitity criteria. Babakathy (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question DGG, ChristianSkeptic, anyone, how does this website meet the criteria at WP:Notability (web)? Until evidence is shown that it does, I will vote Delete. dougweller (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm surprised that anyone would feel that this proposal is censorship, it's just a non notable web site, I can find no evidence to make feel otherwise. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and not worth an article. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.