Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daylight Origins Society

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk | contribs) at 13:21, 4 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight Origins Society

[edit]
Daylight Origins Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Obscure creationist organisation that does not meet WP:ORG. Sourced almost-solely been to their own webpage, with the sole exception being brief tangential mention by the National Center for Science Education (which, given its focus, routinely mentions very minor creationists and creationist organisations). HrafnTalkStalk 04:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unlikely: Sennot's "this society" is clearly refering to the immediately-previously-mentioned CESHE. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Giertych is a member of both, and that Berthault, a member of CESHE publishes in Daylight, but that no cross-membership/cross-authorship with MSS is recorded. I would further point out that DOS predates Morning Star. HrafnTalkStalk 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update4:I'd like to note that on September 12, hrafn, the editor who tried to Speedy Delete this article and then AfD'd it, retired from Wikipedia. Details are on his user talk page. His retirement does not change the fact that this AfD will proceed, but it may explain why there will be no further comments signed by User:hrafn here. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These comments are uncivil and quite irrelevant to this process. All of the three things mentioned lacked support from the general community, and again, irrelevant to this deletion. I'd delete your comments, but I have no time to deal with the drama that would ensue. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so it's noted that my role in establishing the RfC was entirely technical in nature and I am neither for nor against the points being raised. All text in the RfC, other than some standard formatting I copied from another user RfC, was exactly as was posted by Catherine to AN/I and edited by at least two others. The consensus there was that AN/I was the wrong place, but it was sufficiently well formatted that I (as an admin with some familiarity with process) was able to verbatim copy it to an RFC/U page, which as yet has not been certified. Orderinchaos 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the sentence that was offensive and i apologize for it; it had no place in this simple statement of facts. Again, my apologies for overstepping the bounds of propriety. cat yronwode not logged in a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemarlin wrote (to Catherineyronwode): "I'd delete your comments, but I have no time to deal with the drama that would ensue." I want to point out that accusations of uncivil editing are more convincing when the accusations do not contain their own uncivil comments. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about footnotes. When the AfD was posted on Sept 8, the article had 2 footnotes. People have done a lot of work on it since then and now it has 15 footnotes (at the time when I'm writing this note).--Linda (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just added two more third-party refs, the Kolbe Center and Nature (UK) science magazine. This may not be the most notable organization in the whole world, but it has been publishing a quarterly journal since 1991, has drawn noisy fire from anti-Creationist journals, and is peopled with Creationists who have biographies online at Wikipedia.
  • Comment: The Kolbe Center ref merely mentions that Nevard is the secretary of DOS, and given that both he and Giertych are on the KC's advisory council, the independence of this source is questionable. The Nature ref is merely "correspondence", in response to earlier correspondence from Giertych and (if Google Scholar is to be believed) makes no direct mention of DOS. Therefore neither source adds any notability. HrafnTalkStalk 06:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Kolbe Center page was used to source Nevard's role as the editor of the Daylight magazine -- information that had not previously been in the article, and which i believed did need a source. Questioning the "independence" of that source is disingenuous as there is no mention of a connection or a relationship betwen Giertych and the DOS on the Kolbe page -- just the fact of Nevard being the journal editor, which is hardly controversial! The Nature ref does indeed mention the DOS, and if you don't subscribe to Nature, a regular google-snippet will still reveal the mention, as i demontrated on the DOS talk page and will copy here:
Nature A timely wake-up call as anti-evolutionists publicize their views ... a seminar held in Brussels at the European Parliament on ... the Daylight Origins Society, ... www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/full/444679a.html - Similar pages
Cheers, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The non-notable secretary of this non-notable organisation is also the editor of its non-notable magazine -- trivial coverage.
Google Scholar clearly was in error -- however, on tracking down a full-text copy of this correspondence, I see that the only mention it makes of DOS is that Giertych is an honorary member of it -- again trivial coverage.
HrafnTalkStalk 09:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'd like to see this kept just to keep tabs on these organisations, but the article clearly fails WP:ORG as it does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. On that basis I must support deletion unless good sources can be found. . . dave souza, talk 12:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This AFD has no foundation and has been motivated by a sense of retaliation for [[3]]. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Firefly322's personal attack is false. As anybody who bothered to read this article's history can tell, I WP:PRODed this article before the author of the WP:ATTACKPAGE (s)he cites became involved. HrafnTalkStalk 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Not sure what I said that was a personal attack here. The link between this AFD and the ANI are fairly clear. It would be surprising to find a religion and science article that Hrafn did not prod. Furthermore, Hrafn likes to time his or her actions so that those involved are made to feel a sense of retaliation. Hrafn has only taken this to afd so as to make himself feel powerful and show others not to mess with him. The ANI provides documentation and is making this kind of behavior clear. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firefly, you're not a mind-reader. This page is about considering whether this article meets the minimum requirements of notability, not for you to make assertions about editors. If you want the article kept, find sources that meet WP:ORG. . . dave souza, talk 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using basic confirmation holism, the article itself asserts that it meets WP:ORG. This AFD should be closed as speedy keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firefly, is this last possibly a serious argument? That it asserts importance is enough to prevent a speedy delete, but not a delete at AfD. DGG (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(interposting) DGG, the material does have coherency, but per WP:Truth, methods of determining what is or is not True are somewhat out of place here. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
classic irrelevant argument, especially for something much of which was pre-internet. DGG (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I have moved the off-topic Giertych material to the Giertych page. (Side-note: i also substantially reorganized the paragraph order on the Giertych page, too, because some items were in topic order while others were in chronological order; i added topical sub-heads and asserted chronological order within the sections.)
(2) That text-move makes the D.O.S. page shorter, but it is now better focussed, i believe. It still contains 3rd party sources, so i fail to see why hrafn, the AfD nominator, keeps re-tagging it for lack of sources. Therefore i am removing that template.
(3) I truly think that the only viable argument for deletion is non-notability, not lack of sourcing.
  • Comment: Should we merge Anthony Nevard into D.O.S. rather than delete both? I noticed today that the article on Anthony Nevard, the chairman of the D.O.S., was prodded on September 6th as well, also by hrafn. I improved that article too, and removed the prod, which, knowing hrafn's history here as an editor, means that the Nevard article will soon be nominated as an AfD by hrafn, if it isn't already. I would like those who are interested in the retention in Wikipedia of material about relious topics to consider proposing a merge instead of utter deletion and effacement of both articles. If i were to chose only ONE of these two to keep, it would be the D.O.S. page, with the Nevard mini-biography folded into the D.O.S. "History and current structure" sub-section. Thanks for reading this and for voting. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fringe, insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources. Nothing in GoogleNews[4], nothing in GoogleBooks[5], nothing in GoogleScholar[6]. Does not pass WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep given that the bulk of activity is before the internet era, and that catholic traditionalist organizations tend not to use the internet much, as compared with Fundamentalist protestant groups, and are from my experience very difficult but not impossible to document, the sources given are sufficient to show then notability. The mention in Nature is sufficiently mainstream to show at least that it's recognized, though the ref is certainly not substantial. I really do wish, however, that at least some other printed Catholic traditionalist sources could be found. Most creationist sources I am familiar with are from groups also showing sem degree of anti-Catholic prejudice, and therefore not likely to mention this one. If deleted here, the relevant material could certainly be added to the article on Nevard, which I think is solid enough to hold. Contrary to what Nsk932 thinks, "Fringe" is not a reason for deletion. Contrary to what Jim62 thinks, "Too fringe for WP" is IDONTLIKEIT, not a reason for deletion either. DGG (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly don't think that being fringe is a reason for deletion per se. However, for a fringe organization I would like to see sufficient coverage in mainstream media (as opposed to other fringe sources). The article in Nature is good, but not enough, in my opinion, in the absence of wider coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: while I agree that Traditionalist Catholic creationism is a topic worthy of an article, I don't think that this organisation can serve as its basis. The UK has a small Catholic population (9% compared to the US's 26% and Poland's 95%), and Traditionalist Catholics are only a tiny (less than 1% and considerably less by some estimates) proportion of all Catholics. This means that Traditionalist Catholicism will tend to have an imperceptible public impact in the UK, and that we should look elsewhere (particularly to Catholic-majority countries) for notable examples of Traditionalist Catholic creationism. HrafnTalkStalk 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding Catholic demographical statistics: Note that Daylight magazine claims to distributed into a number of non-Anglophone and predominently Catholic nations, including Poland, France, the Phillipines, etc. I cannot check this distribution pattern, of course, but the point is that they are obviously targeting an audience outside of the U.K. Note also that Nevard is on the advisory board of the Kolbe Center of Virginia, USA, as is Giertych -- that is, we have some internationist outreach here. Again, i would prefer to merge Nevard into the D.O.S. and keep the D.O.S., not keep both. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: Daylight is not "distributed" to these countries (which would imply significant penetration), but merely has a "circulation"[7] that extends to them (which could be no more than a handful of subscribers, or even a single one, in each). It is not 'obvious' that this 'not very active' "English branch" of CESHE is "targeting an audience outside of the U.K." -- or doing anything much at all. HrafnTalkStalk 11:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too thinly sourced to enable a reliable article to exist. I don't mind that they are fringe, they just don't strike me as a notable participant in the fringe. The well-documented and clearly notable Maciej Giertych is said to be an honorary member of this group, but no source is provided for that statement. (Do we know for sure he is even aware that he is an honorary member?). The Daylight magazine is said to publish (among others) the work of G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis. I don't think this group inherits any notability from any of those worthy individuals. I don't perceive that any of References 1 through 5 is a reliable source. Can't any small group of people claim to be an important participant in the anti-evolution movement? How can we know that for sure? EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ed Johnston, seeing as how Giertych was referred to as an "honourary member" of the D.O.S. in both cited magazine sources (Nature and the NCSE journal) as well as in articles in La Prensa of Panama, and other newspapers logged at google's newpaper archive in non-English languages, it would appear Giertych knows that he is an honourary member of the D.O.S. and that we need supply no further references. :-) Perhaps i should bring those non-English language newspaper sources into the article. Maybe that would help establish international notability. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the whole points of the notability guidleline is that a mention does not confer it. Brilliantine (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the wording of the guideline. My recommendation to keep the article is based on a combination of factors; the mention in the journal Nature is only one of them. That mention though, carries significantly more weight than a mention in a local newspaper. With that and the other references, the topic-organization and the magazine they publish satisfy the notability inclusion criteria in various ways, in my view. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Nature citation carries very little weight -- as it was explicitly "correspondence" (effectively a letter to the editor), in response to a letter from Giertych previously published. HrafnTalkStalk 06:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts on this, but I did not enter my comment here with the intention of debating. I read the article, reviewed the sources, and stated my recommendation that the topic is notable enough to keep the article. For purposes of determining consensus with regard to this AfD, my entry stands as I wrote it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: added New York Times Syndicate -- in Spanish -- I just added another ref, in which the Daylight Origins Society is mentioned. It is from La Prensa, Panama, New York Times Syndicate, by Beatriz Navarro. They claim their material is distributed in other countries (that is, where English is not the language spoken, and where many people are Catholics). So i will add this ref. I have no idea whether it will change any minds -- but i will add it. cat yronwode, not logged in, sorry 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a two sentence mention rather than any sort of non-trivial coverage. Brilliantine (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a description and it is not from the site's own page. Hrafn had previusly noted the fact that the only description came from their own site. I'm just trying to help here. See below for two more references from 3rd partis. How many do you think would be optimal? --cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think to convince me of notability you would need, in addition to what is already here, one article in a not-too-obscure newspaper or journal that offers substantial coverage of the organisation, or discussion (rather than just a mention) of the organisation in a scholarly work. Alternatively two or three articles in not-too-obscure publications (WP:RS) where there is at least a medium-sized paragraph that actually offers more than a sentence or two of information on the organisation. Brilliantine (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: added British Centre for Science Education -- I just added another 3rd party ref, because this one notes that the D.O.S., being Catholic, "doesn't appear to cooperate at all with mainstream creationist groups which are all basically Protestant, calvinistic and evangelical." That's a new information, not found in other sources. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: added Christians in Science Young Earth creationsism link -- I have added a mention that the D.O.S. promotes not just any form of creationism, but specifically Young Earth creationsim. This appears on the British Christians in Science web directory as such. I thought the information was significant enough to include in the D.O.S. article, especially since there is already a Wiki page on the Christians in Science organization. I think that these refs about YEC beliefs and abstainance from linkage with Protestant creationist groups begin to paint a clearer and more well-referenced picture of the D.O.S. than we had when the nimination for AfD was made. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, that's another page which seems to be entirely based on selfpublished Christians in Science website pages which are giving me 404 not found messages. Verification is needed from reliable secondary sources, and current links to these primary sources would also be a good idea. Carry on, dave souza, talk 13:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the same problem of lack of secondary sources applies to Christian Order, another non-notable organisation being used as a reference to assert the notability of this organisation. . . dave souza, talk 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Creationism is spurious but deletion is a bad idea. Busker49 (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there does not appear to be enough evidence of notability. Guettarda (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This organization is notable enough to have an article. There are enough references in the page. They've published a print magazine since 1977. They're involved with several other similar Catholic creationist groups. A Member of the European Parliament is an honorary member of the group. I don't believe in creationism at all, but just looking at this by the Wikirules, the article should not be deleted. --Linda (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there seems not to be enough evidence of notability per WP:ORG. Verbal chat 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is wrong with Wikipedia the world myself that we have this article and not one about, say, the Oxonian Society? WP:OTHERSTUFF, I know. Nevertheless, delete. user:Everyme 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with Eldereft and nom that it exists but sufficient non-trivial, independent, third-party coverage which would give perspective on its operations is lacking. Note that many organisations exist, have members and publish but are not notable - I belong to one personally (it's a professional society, but a small one). Orderinchaos 18:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just scrapes through the notability guidelines IMO. Better to keep bordeline notable articles than delete, after all that is what makes Wikipedia a uniquely useful resource. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , fails ORG completely. The sources are about other groups/subjects mentioned in the article or very pathetic sources indeed which merely acknowledge the group exists. Sorry, but this group is not notable. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Per DGG and Filll. It seems to me that offline references might be found. The organization was founded in 1977. There ought to be something, so give it time. I also think the NYT ref might be good, though I can't tell. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why is there such a desire to eliminate subjects from Wikipedia that someone happens to dislike for whatever reason. I dislike a number of subjects. Should I be trying to eliminate mention of them from Wikipedia? Of course not! There are external references to them, such as the mention in the New York Times Syndicate and the British Centre for Science Education - which is more weight than a mere mention in a local newspaper. Along with the other references, and the fact that they have been publishing their own magazine since 1977, this organization definitely should be referenced in Wikipedia. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daylight_Origins_Society&oldid=1142804713"