Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem hypothesis (2nd nomination)
- 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Salem hypothesis[edit]
- Salem hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
This article doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline, and large portions of it consist of original research via synthesis. There are 4 references cited. Of these, two (the talk.origins FAQ, and a PZ Myers blog entry) don't seem to meet our standards for reliable sourcing. The other two are academic papers, but one (An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement) doesn't even contain the word "Salem," so any attempt to tie it to this Usenet-based hypothesis is original research. The fourth source (Engineers of Jihad) does contain a footnote that describes the Salem Hypotheis. But that's only cited in passing and doesn't meet the "significant coverage" requirement of the GNG. *** Crotalus *** 17:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Minor, or more accurately trivial, "hypothesis" which doesn't meet basic notability guidelines. No mainstream coverage found. "Academic support" for the idea consists of an essay at Creative Commons and a paper presented to the Iowa Academy of Science. But Creative Commons is just a blog, and "papers presented" are not peer-reviewed and thus do not carry the reliability of journal articles. Other than that, it seems to be pretty much one guy's idea - a guy whose credentials are that he is "a regular contributor to the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup" - vaguely supported by a few other guys. I'm surprised the article has lasted this long - and that it survived its first deletion nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can this be merged somewhere, perhaps Talk.origins? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Merge to an article on creationists. A sentence could be added saying it has been noted that more creationists have engineering than scientific backgrounds. An article is not needed to present this one observation, interesting as it is. Wolfview (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The Salem Hypothesis is a correlational study. Peer review journals are full correlational studies which are relatively easy to produce. This hypthosesis is not yet supported by enough indpendant research to meet notability requirements for an encyclopedia. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
