1350:. 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....."
1248:
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.
1021:
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.
2171:. A sorry little website, like many another feeble-minded blog. No notability established, or establishable. For a website that has allegedly been around since 1997, it has attracted remarkably little attention - almost no Google hits. I can think of many (many, many) really useful websites with far greater importance and influence that do not have their own wikipedia articles (yes, I know, I should go ahead and start articles on them).
716:(Oktar) - another creationist citing them. Harun Yahya is not a reliable source as you can see from reading our article on him. He is a holocaust denier whose views can be summarized as something like "The Holocaust didn't happen and the Nazis did it because they believed in evolution". That might be actually more coherent than his description. In any event, not a reliable source and not used as more than a minor citation.
122:
1592:
concluded the user, or any other user in this discussion is calling for keeping or deletion based on their POV. Now, if you are still convinced that I'm somehow magically engaging in personal attacks here, I suggest you continue the discussion on my talk page, since this is rapidly becoming irrelevant to the issue at hand- whether or not there are reliable sources that discuss the website in question.
1355:..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.
1792:
Profg and Rucas- this is precisely why I called for AGF earlier. Profg, you seem to be acting almost as bad a Rucas. As to accusations that there are "POV-warriors" here calling for deletion, note that Filll who is often accused of being some sort of evilutionist was in favor of considering keeping,
1717:
To all of you darwinists who hate creationism and would love nothing more than to delete this article. You might actually be helping the creationists at TrueOrigin
Archive, you see when people search for "True Origins" in Google, the TrueOrigin Archive comes up as the first result; however, Knowledge
1247:
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
1070:
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
1020:
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
2525:
even 1% of the references. That is consistent with the pattern established at the very beginning of the AfD, with its creation just 2 minutes after the creation of the article in question: 2 minutes is obviously insufficient time for the article to have been carefully read, let along the subject of
2267:
That's the purpose of the "-site:trueorigin.org" clause in the google search. If you leave out that clause, you get about 14,700 hits. The differences is 10.2% -- which doesn't seem like "nearly all" to me. As for how many of them are mentions in blogs, I don't know, because I don't have the time
1930:
The "irony" in the leadoff statement here is predicated on the assumption that everyone's top priority is to advance a specific POV above all else. I'm fully aware of the power of
Knowledge's search-engine ranking, but you'll notice that most of the comments have to do with notability, not hatred of
1550:
states, "some types of comments are never acceptable," including "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme... Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner
741:
Oh, wow. We've now hit something that might be a reliable source. That's a rarity in this list. Unfortunately, if I recall correctly ( the text isn't online and I read the book a few years ago) Forrest and Gross briefly mention True
Origins as an example of how some proponents of Intelligent Design
2332:
cannot find any worthwhile things about trueorigin.org, other than cruft on blogs and discussion groups. Excluding wikipedia and trueorigin itself, the first ten items thrown up by a google search for "trueorigin archive" (which seems a fair enough search, given that it is precisely the name of the
1000:
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
2777:
we need these sources is not to just count them, but to be able to write an encyclopaedic article. What are we to make of these sources? This sources can as far as I have looked at them, only be used to say that "The web-site has been listed in Paley's book in a list of evolution related web-sites
2211:
A few comments. First, note that NPA doesn't refer to insulting websites or such, but to other
Knowledge users. I don't see a negative connotation to blog per se and am puzzled as to why you see one, but in any event, the website does bear a strong resemblance to a group blog. As to the google hit
1591:
This isn't that complicated. The user in question said "It's highly obvious that this AFD is POV motivated" which is a failure to assume AGF. My observation is that given the user's own statements if we start not assuming AGF it hits him pretty badly. Since I am, of course, assuming AGF, I haven't
2796:
The
Forrester & Gross reference could actually be useful, and would give a little balance to the article, not sure that is enough to then only rely on true.origins itself. I think your analysis is probably right, these sources will do little to help writing the article, but I did my best, and
2450:
Oops. I missed the point you were making. No, I didn't have to do more than glance at them. Shall I delete my error, or let it stand to further make the point that the google hits are not reliable sources? Sorry for accusing you of insufficient comprehension of the policy; this discussion has
2191:
and gratuitous insults. "Feeble-minded?" Really, it is sufficient to say that you disagree with them, or (as I did) that you find their arguments unpersuasive. Also, calling it a "blog" site seems to be just another insult. I doubt that you really think that it is a blog. Also, I don't think
1734:
The deletion debate is about notability vs non-notability, and the availability of reliable sources, related to this one web site. It doesn't have anything to do with hating creationism. I hope it doesn't have anything to do with your liking creationism, either, and that your vote is related to
2616:
Merzul, your Google book search link finds 46 books that mention TalkOrigins. I just posted a list of 13 books that mention TrueOrigin. Now, granted, 46 is greater than 13, but the numbers are close enough that I wonder how many book references you think it takes to be evidence of notability?
1675:
A non-notable person gets into an argument with an un-named relative, posts his side of the argument online, and then makes it "a web page in hopes of reaching a few other readers." Nothing follows that establishes notability. No numbers. No sponsors. No references in any major publications?
1617:
I don't think this was a case of not AGF, rather it was drawing the obvious conclusion from the fact that the AfD was posted just two minutes after the article it proposed to delete. Two minutes is not enough time to have even carefully read the article, let along the subject of the article.
2238:
in what I said! (2) If others are allowed to support their "keep" arguments with baseless comments that it's "a great website", surely I am equally entitled to express my contrary opinion. (3) In Google, "trueorigin archive" gets about 700. "trueorigin" gets 14,000, but it's nearly all cruft,
1907:
Yes, while I fully support
Knowledge's model of consensus for discussion rather than majority voting, I find constructions like !vote to be confusing for users who aren't experienced Wikipedians, and I try to keep my comments simple enough that users who aren't members of the cabal can still
2285:
in the google search myself, and since you appear satisfied that you have found them, could you just post links to the three best articles about the web site that you found? I'd love to change my mind in this discussion; I always feel good about being able to save an article from deletion.
1718:
gets very good search placement and if this article stays there's a good chance it could replace the actual website for the first spot in Google. So by deleting this article you're getting people to go to a site on creationism instead of a
Knowledge article about a site on creationism. --
1967:
I have no dog in this fight, and I find young-earth creationist arguments unpersuasive, but there really is no question that the TrueOrigin website easily meets
Knowledge's notability critera. Google finds over 8300 links to articles on the TrueOrgin.org web site from other web sites.
2560:
I am obviously not going to look at 13,200 Google hits. But given the way that Google ranks hits, I reckon a sample of the FIRST NINE out of 13,200 is a reasonable way to gauge Google-notability. But please do tell us - which of the remaining 13,191 are reliable independent sources?
384:
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.
2252:(1&2) Web sites do not have minds, feeble or otherwise. To refer to it as "feeble-minded" indicates that you think its authors and fans are feeble-minded. Even if you do, it is impolite to say so. I'm sure that you can find more civil ways to express your disagreements.
786:
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.
2268:
to look at 13,200 links (but Josuha sees no negative connotation to blogs, anyhow). But even if all of them were references on blogs, that would still be more than sufficient to establish notability. You called it "almost no Google hits," but, truly, I think 13,200 is a
835:
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
1466:
This is a great website, and is certainly very notable. I was actually just there earlier today reading an essay by Dr. Jerry Bergman on the creation of pathogenic viruses. It's highly obvious that this AFD is POV motivated, I can't think of any good reason to delete.
2539:
among them. If you think they're there, I'm afraid the burden is on you to prove it. Without those reliable sources, no amount of google-hit-counting will help your argument, and I'd be glad to see the reliable sources discovered so we could save this article.
1264:
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.
334:
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
1735:
your ability to find reliable sources that show notability for this one web site. If anyone is voting on this one web site based on how much they like or dislike the general field of study, then they're completely missing the point of the discussion. -
2327:
OK, I was being a bit rude about the site (and, by implication, about its creators and contributors). If you are reading this, I apologise for any offence I may have caused. And I was indeed a bit offhand in my "no google hits" comment. But I really
1551:
in which it is done... It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Please, always
742:
also put out essays on avowedly creationist websites. Wow, so we now have one minor factoid about the website from 13 books. That was a good use of my time. In the future could you please look at the sources before giving them to us to look at?
1581:
Sigh, I think JoshuaZ in this case you may want to a) reread your comment ("Especially given your editing history and user page") or b) reread NPA in light of that comment (especially the section I quoted). It might in fact be best to do both.
2439:
Note - those ten-or-so links were provided by me in support of my "non-notable" contention. I hope you didn't waste too much time on them! We are still waiting for NCdave to provide the three reliable sources to demonstrate notability...
825:
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.
2646:
Exactly, it is really very simple. If any of those book discuss the web-site in any length, then please summarize what the book says, and add it as a source to the article. If you get two or three of such mentions, then I will change my
1484:. A little AGF might be in order, just maybe? Especially given your editing history and user page. You know, glass houses, stone throwing and all that... Oh and while we're at it- a website being useful or "great" has nothing to do with
2591:. I really wanted this to be kept (per OrangeMarlin's original thinking), so I tried hard to find a reliable source! And just as Snalwibma, I can't find anything satisfying "nontrivial coverage in a reliable source" In contrast to the
1700:
completely inadequate references, the only non-self reference seems to be a self published post from a talk.origins newsgroup of Feb. 17, 1999 – that does not look credible as a reliable source. Better secondary sources needed. ..
1893:
Fisher's comment is just as valid without the use of some pretentious neologism like not-vote or ~vote or whatever is the current style du jour. In fact, the non-voting nature of the matter makes Fisher's point all the stronger.
2602:
this site (as opposed to just link to it), then please add it to the article. I think having a NPOV article on this site would be useful, but that is only possible if there is nontrivial independent coverage somewhere...
1082:
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.
2487:
I'm reminded of the engineers' proof that all odd numbers are prime: 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, yep, all odd numbers are prime. That's 9 down, 13,191 to go, but never mind, they're all cruft.
1207:
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.
2138:. If there were one or two secondary independent sources, such as a newspaper article which this website was the main subject of, or even a significant subject of, I could be convinced to switch to a keep. -
2778:
together with the Discovery Institute"? In any case, I suggest trying to use these sources to write the article, then whether we have non-trivial coverage in independent sources is immediately obvious. --
2306:
Clarification: While blog doesn't have negative connotation by itself, blogs are not reliable sources. And no number of unreliable sources is sufficient if we have no reliable sources. We could have
2521:
No, sorry if I was unclear. It means that the folks why say all the references to TrueOrigin.org are cruft are stating a conclusion which is unwarranted by the evidence. They obviously haven't
2598:, I couldn't find a single mention of this web-site in a even a news search. So please, if there is any substantial coverage of this site in print, that is, anything in a reliable source that
1772:
Now I'm really confused. I looked at your vote, for instance, and it didn't even address the question of whether or not there are reliable sources. Are you accusing yourself of POV voting? -
2360:. OK - not quite ten, but enough... I may have overstated it initially, but this little exercise confirms my first impression - it's a trivial website with no great influence or notability.
974:
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? --
438:
It isn't obvious from his indentation, above, but if you look at the comment dates you'll see that Orangemarlin changed his recommendation from Keep to Strong Delete just one hour
1656:. Maybe if it lasts another fifteen years someone might be bothered to write an independent non-trivial review, but until then there's no good reason to keep this article around.
2626:
Only two or three, if they actually discuss the book rather than just mentioning it. Have you read any of these books? Do any of them discuss the book at length or in detail? -
1519:
983:
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.
129:
463:
Whatever. I don't think google hits prove squat. I didn't even read what you wrote, because it wasn't relevant to my powerful and awesome ability to make up my own mind.
110:
1572:
Sigh, I think Profg in this case you may want to a) reread my comment or b) reread NPA (including the section you just quoted). It might in fact be best to do both.
1243:
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
703:
again just a minor reference to a report, and the book in question appears to be published by a vanity press anyways (I could be wrong but it looks like that to me).
2023:
among the hits, either. I'd be interested in what reliable sources you found, and your methods, because I always like learning new tricks for uncovering sources. -
52:
299:. 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
1988:
only yielded 177 links, many of them from the same websites, and most of them from blogs. How did you do yours? Either way, google hits/links does not establish
669:- the entire mention is that a certain essay has a copy there. In what is essentially an apologetic book. Appears to be more of a polemic than a reliable source.
2134:- I was contacted on my talk page by profg for input. This article seems to be mainly sourced by primary self-published sources, afoul of the last criteria of
1298:
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
2069:
414:
2726:
1284::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.
2842:
if used as such. Arguements to keep are not addressing the very basic failures in Knowledge policy that this article suffers from, notability as a start.
1793:
as was Orangemarlin. This isn't a deletion being orchestrated by an evolutionist cabal. At minimum, if there is a cabal here, it is a damn incompetent one.
1443:
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. -
2773:
But, how are we to use them in the article? The notability guidelines are based on the real principles of verifiability and neutral point of view. The
2739:
2718:
2710:
1301:
2655:, is something that can be used as a source. Do we have anything? But don't expect anyone to weed through this discussion here, if you find anything,
2310:
of google hits and if none of them we're reliable are hands would be tied becuase there'd be nothing we could write about it that was compliant with
2051:
yields "Results 1 - 10 of about 8,330 for link:*.trueorigin.org -site:trueorigin.org" That would be 8300+ links to the TrueOrigin.org web site from
636:
627:
618:
609:
600:
582:
573:
564:
555:
546:
296:
2535:
Well, I did look at the google results. Not at all 1000 hits, of course, but certainly at the first five or six pages. And I didn't find any
83:
78:
2864:: actually, the arguments to keep are specifically addressing notability. (Of course, all of that should have been addressed on the Talk page
1156:
1109:. It eventually was rewritten and moved to a better article. I can't find anything to back this site's notability up (IE, Reliable Sources).
726:
died in 1905. Apparently an updated version of his book includes a list of modern creationist websites at the end which includes TrueOrigins.
87:
1439:
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
1146:
49:
2048:
1299:
864:
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.
1304:
70:
2747:
1618:
Perhaps the editor who proposed the article for deletion was already thoroughly familiar with the subject of the article, but, if so,
2689:
2636:
2550:
2511:
2461:
2424:
2296:
2033:
1918:
1782:
1745:
1453:
1374:
1306:
138:
1312:'s ministry. True Origins is not notable. There's simply nothing we can write about it other than its existence that complies with
1378:
168:
2379:
2334:
1645:
17:
552:"The Big Argument: Twenty-Four Scholars Explore How Science, Archaeology, and Philosophy Have Proven the Existence of God,"
2188:
1175:
2098:
1985:
1308:. AIG is a notable creationist ministry, as is the ICR. Both have multiple independent, reliable sources. Similarly for
796:
2152:
154:
2016:
2592:
788:
591:
2212:
number, that isn't terribly relevant if we don't have reliable sources and in any event since it is a website the
1189:
127:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
2896:
2652:
678:
Now we get to an actual paper. Actual science paper referencing a page in TrueOrigin (actually the same essay by
36:
2876:
2852:
2810:
2801:
2791:
2782:
2764:
2694:
2663:
2641:
2621:
2607:
2565:
2555:
2530:
2516:
2492:
2481:
2466:
2444:
2429:
2364:
2322:
2301:
2276:
2247:
2220:
2200:
2175:
2159:
2142:
2116:
2084:
2063:
2038:
2003:
1972:
1945:
1923:
1898:
1884:
1872:
1857:
1829:
1797:
1787:
1763:
1750:
1722:
1709:
1692:
1680:
1667:
1626:
1596:
1586:
1576:
1559:
1533:
1509:
1492:
1471:
1458:
1431:
1411:
1361:
1342:
1320:
1290:
1276:
1252:
1238:
1212:
1160:
1113:
1089:
1075:
1051:
1038:
1025:
1005:
987:
978:
934:
898:
868:
859:
844:
830:
809:
766:
746:
658:
527:
491:
478:
454:
446:, I added the comment informing him that Google finds a whopping 13,200 references and links to TrueOrigin from
429:
400:
379:
364:
Changed from above. I'm now unconvinced of notability. Points by MastCell and JoshuaZ are what convinced me.
354:
319:
307:
283:
270:
250:
2895:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
2213:
1662:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
2410:
I only asked for three good sources; and frankly, I don't feel like reading any more of them. Please, reread
2093:
Thnx for the clarification on search strategy. Still, google hits or links (or lack thereof) do not establish
539:
Here you go, JoshuaZ. These are some books which reference the TrueOrigin web site, or material found on it:
2349:
2239:
consisting of self-references and mentions in blogs etc. (4) And, yes, it is blog-like. Or, if you prefer, a
1121:
951:
262:(you can see that's true by clicking on the links above) to look at this article and the AfD have called for
74:
1185:
1370:
1170:
1488:. I visit a lot of websites daily that are great and useful, that doesn't mean they should have articles.
1166:
200:
1393:
911:(changed from "Delete.") Herculean efforts by profg, NCdave, OrangeMarlin and others have failed to find
2685:
2632:
2546:
2507:
2457:
2420:
2292:
2029:
1914:
1778:
1741:
1506:
1449:
1428:
686:- simply using it as a note that certain types of creationist arguments exist and not for anything else.
66:
58:
850:
837:
2755:
2076:
Note that this does not include references on the TrueOrigin.org web site, itself, only references on
1397:
1366:
1357:
266:
the article, this is patently untrue, and is another example of stalking and harassment by JoshuaZ. --
2477:
2109:
2102:
1996:
1989:
1706:
1404:
1231:
927:
891:
512:
184:
158:
762:
Seems as notable as Talk Origins. In fact, Talk Origins links to and has responses to True Origins.
1657:
1653:
853:
which happen to be collected on TrueOrigins - not evidence that the site is independently notable.
792:
292:
143:
2352:
966:
AfD'd two minutes after it was created; in fact, most stubs are tagged asking for editors to help
336:
190:
121:
1814:
I'm not sure if you misspelled that intentionally or not, but I am not going to use it widely.
523:. If someone can find reliable sources that talk about it I will consider changing my position.
2135:
1815:
1502:
1195:
694:
464:
386:
365:
340:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2501:, either? I'm sorry; you must be disappointed, after seeming so sure that there were some. -
2261:"this does not include references on the TrueOrigin.org web site, itself, only references on
1546:
fellow editors, especially for something that has nothing to do with the present discussion.
2680:
2627:
2541:
2502:
2452:
2415:
2358:
2307:
2287:
2059:
a few of them; I don't think it was doing that yesterday, or if it was I didn't notice it.)
2024:
1936:
1909:
1847:
1773:
1736:
1677:
1444:
946:: See, this is what I'm talking about. Most of what is being discussed here are issues for
803:, mentioned in college textbooks, etc. This one is not in the same league notability-wise.
2389:
2337:
2106:
1993:
1702:
1401:
1228:
1136:
924:
888:
827:
280:
1199:
2845:
2835:
2562:
2472:
2441:
2361:
2244:
2172:
2156:
2139:
1932:
1881:
1719:
1468:
1072:
1002:
763:
679:
1688:
This is not notable? I thought it was. Lets find some references to show that it is.--
709:- uses it as an example of a creationist website along with many others, nothing more.
246:
which includes a number of users who have called for keeping below such as RucasHost.
2831:
2679:
Boy, I don't envy the poor admin who has to read this mess and determine consensus. -
2235:
2094:
1941:
1853:
1552:
1547:
1543:
1481:
1424:
1331:
1286:
1272:
1224:
1085:
920:
855:
818:
805:
779:
775:
723:
690:
520:
316:
2414:
and then post the three that are articles in reliable sources about this web site. -
735:- the only mentions in that book if I recall is Wells citing his own essay on their.
2839:
2788:
2536:
2498:
2451:
gotten a bit complicated for me and I lost track of who was trying to prove what. -
2411:
2383:
2319:
2315:
2282:
2217:
2020:
1895:
1794:
1593:
1573:
1489:
1440:
1317:
1249:
1244:
1125:
1048:
1022:
984:
865:
841:
791:
is not a valid argument in the first place, but even if it were, comparing this to
743:
524:
516:
247:
218:
206:
174:
2405:
2346:
104:
2155:
google news archive hits, but one is a LTTE, and the other two are blog posts. -
663:
None of these are non-trivial independent reliable sources. Here we go in order.
153:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
2827:
2798:
2779:
2660:
2618:
2604:
2527:
2489:
2311:
2273:
2197:
2081:
2060:
1969:
1623:
1485:
1313:
1309:
1179:
1140:
1110:
916:
884:
783:
713:
655:
488:
451:
426:
331:
1480:
Oh say, like the complete absence of reliable sources that might show it meets
2873:
2807:
2761:
2394:
2340:
1869:
1760:
1689:
1583:
1556:
1530:
1209:
1035:
1031:
975:
561:"Insect Evolutionary Ecology: Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society,"
304:
267:
2741:
Insect Evolutionary Ecology: Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society
2259:, because I explicitly excluded them from the search. That's why I wrote,
1880:
There are no votes, it's a discussion, or at least it's supposed to be. --
2806:
Added ref from Fellowes as well, will keep looking and adding. Thanks. --
1851:. It probably goes back even further. Of course, history repeats itself.
1267:
822:
2787:
Agreed with Merzul. See in any event my item by item discussion above.
2399:
2343:
2240:
642:"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design,"
519:
that discuss it. The TrueOrigin Archive does not. It massively fails
1200:
Religion & Science (RL 371): "Evolution, Creationism and Design"
2728:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design
733:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design
258:: As evidenced by the fact that a number of users whom I requested
1150:
1044:
2055:
web sites. (But here's the weirdness: today it is only actually
2889:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1124:
page to discuss the article, here's some "multiple, independent
2707:
let's see, I've read a few of them that appear to be notable:
1649:
648:"Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design,"
116:
2355:
2281:
I know I've asked this before, but since I couldn't find the
2868:
an AfD was initiated, but hey, who can do that in less than
2255:(3) You are mistaken, snalwibma. That 13,200 hits includes
237:: Profg has engaged in apparent canvassing in this AfD. See
147:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
2757:
Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design
1759:
Now THAT is funny, considering most of the "votes" here. --
817:, I think I've located a page that reveals compliance with
739:
Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design
303:(which is what happened here) to be edited and improved. --
2047:
Well, Google is acting weird today. As it did yesterday,
1001:
that (thus, they are using this to get around that fact).
2497:
Does that mean that you couldn't find the ones that were
2400:
an archive from a discussion board; not a reliable source
2072:
to TrueOrigin from other web sites, Google said it found
2471:
Oh, please let it stand. it's much more fun this way...
2395:
A catalog form a bookstore; how is this a source at all?
1161:"Philosophy/Liberal Studies 333: Evolution and Creation"
1135:
Professor David A. Plaisted, Dept. of Computer Science,
1526:
1389:
1106:
487:
You didn't even read it? Then why did you ask for it?
443:
244:
242:
240:
238:
100:
96:
92:
1120:
Since we're apparently using this page instead of the
1071:
enough time to thoroughly check for reliable sources.
729:
Next are two more incidental mentions by Harun Yahya.
722:
I was a bit surprised to see this on the list since
2019:, which yielded about 1000 hits, but I didn't find
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1845:is a charming coinage that dates back at least to
1503:liking something may lead one down the garden path
315:it uses itself as the majority of it's references.
2899:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2836:container used to transport cleaning products in
2070:searched for both links and non-link references
795:is ludicrous - that site has been noted by the
563:by Mark Fellowes, Graham Holloway, Jens Rolff,
421:links and non-link references to TrueOrigin on
915:sources establishing notability as defined by
2390:An exchange of emails, not a reliable source.
1171:"Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology"
579:"Intelligent Design Origin of Human Destiny,"
167:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
137:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
1043:Um, that appears to be the contact page for
950:the article, and should be discussed on the
689:Next another reference by the same people (
588:"Researching Anthropology On The Internet,"
1868:No disagreement on that statement here. --
1518:Indeed, there is just as much danger that
701:Intelligent Design Origin of Human Destiny
697:) to the same paper as from the first one.
597:"Darwİnİzmİn İnsanliĞa GetİrdİĞİ Belalar,"
511:This isn't notable. The "counterpart" the
141:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
2760:by Barbara Forrest & Paul R. Gross --
1931:creationism. The only irony here is that
1198:Department of Philosophy & Religion,
1155:Professor James R. Hofmann (and others),
954:page, not on an AfD page that was posted
2749:Researching Anthropology On The Internet
707:Researching Anthropology On The Internet
161:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
2736:Ones I haven't read, but look notable:
2099:Knowledge:Search_engine_test#Notability
1388:The above !vote from "TruthTeller" was
1128:" that link to the True.Origin Archive:
339:, which discusses that website better.
1223:Even with these links, it still fails
782:, or for that matter whichever set of
624:"Darwİnİzmİn Kanli İdeolojİsİ FaŞİzm,"
554:by John F. Ashton, Michael Westacott,
1157:California State University Fullerton
958:after this article was created. I've
572:by Charles W. Colson, Nancy Pearcey,
7:
2333:wikipedia article in question) are:
1423:: Does not rise to the standards of
1396:. It's the first edit from that IP.
1147:City of Hope National Medical Center
1141:"Links to Some Other Creation Sites"
1939:than it does about anything else.
1622:is strong evidence of notability.
1542:JoshuaZ, please be careful not to
545:by Charles Colson, Nancy Pearcey,
450:web sites. That seems odd to me.
24:
650:by Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross
590:by David Lee Carlson, Wadsworth,
256:Note to the closing administrator
2834:. Currently just seems to be a
1644:not even close to as notable as
1501:In fact, there is a danger that
1180:"Fundamentalist - Organizations"
849:Agreed; these are criticisms of
235:Note to the closing adminstrator
120:
2412:the reliable sources guidelines
2406:an email, not a reliable source
2216:is of course going to be high.
1935:'s comment says far more about
1045:http://www.lonestarwebworks.com
1030:Looks likeyou can contact them
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
50:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
2651:. Even something as short as
2196:is "almost no Google hits."
1908:understand and participate. -
1176:Geoscience Research Institute
157:on the part of others and to
1194:Professor James F. McGrath,
1188:Department of Anthropology,
1184:Professor David L. Carlson,
797:National Academy of Sciences
53:07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
2877:01:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
2853:01:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
2811:20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2802:19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2792:19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2783:19:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2765:20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2695:18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2664:19:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2642:18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2622:18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2608:17:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2566:07:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
2556:19:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2531:19:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2517:18:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2493:18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2482:17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2467:17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2445:17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2430:17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2380:A post on a discussion list
2365:17:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2323:16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2302:16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2277:16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2248:15:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2221:15:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2201:15:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2176:07:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2160:22:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
2143:22:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
2117:16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2085:15:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2064:14:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2039:21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
2004:21:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1973:21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1946:00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1924:20:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1899:20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1885:20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1873:20:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1858:16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1830:16:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1798:20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1788:20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1764:20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1751:19:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1723:19:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1710:18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1693:17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1681:07:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1668:06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1627:19:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1597:16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1587:16:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1577:14:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1560:05:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1534:05:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1510:03:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1493:03:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1472:03:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1459:01:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1432:00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
1412:15:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1362:15:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1343:15:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1321:23:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1291:20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1277:05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1253:19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1239:15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1213:04:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1114:13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
1090:20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1076:07:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1052:19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1039:03:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1026:03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1006:02:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
988:02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
979:02:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
935:19:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
899:23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
869:00:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
860:23:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
845:23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
831:22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
810:21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
767:21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
747:19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
659:17:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
528:20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
492:19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
479:18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
455:18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
430:15:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
401:23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
380:16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
355:20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
320:20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
308:20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
284:20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
271:19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
251:17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
2916:
2187:, Snalwibma, refrain from
1145:Sean DeVere Pitman, M.D.,
515:has multiple, independent
330:Great reference for silly
2797:added the Paley ref :) --
2596:that mention talk.origins
2257:no self-references at all
1047:. How is that connected?
970:them. Seriously, why not
291:, just as notable as its
2892:Please do not modify it.
1937:how s/he views Knowledge
1330:per Josh and MastCell.
1303:) and none from the ICR
570:"Science and Evolution,"
543:"How Now Shall We Live?"
32:Please do not modify it.
1190:"Physical Anthropology"
1169:- Geological Sciences,
615:"The Evolution Deceit,"
199:; accounts blocked for
169:single-purpose accounts
139:policies and guidelines
2712:How Now Shall We Live?
1167:University of Kentucky
667:How Now Shall We Live?
2657:add it to the article
2480:comment was added at
1379:few or no other edits
684:ow Now Shall We Live?
675:- same thing as above
581:by Theodore A. Green,
2752:by David Lee Carlson
1525:may lead one down a
1381:outside this topic.
1107:in about two minutes
513:Talk Origins Archive
2015:. I did mine like
1394:User:24.127.209.207
1165:Kevin Henke Ph.D.,
885:notability criteria
801:Scientific American
799:, the Smithsonian,
793:TalkOrigins Archive
789:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
784:notability criteria
633:"Ara GeÇİŞ AÇmazi,"
606:"Natural Theology,"
151:by counting votes.
130:not a majority vote
2478:signed but undated
2151:By the way, I got
2074:about 13,200 hits.
1151:"Just a Few Links"
774:: Miserably fails
608:by William Paley,
337:Answers in Genesis
67:TrueOrigin Archive
59:TrueOrigin Archive
2731:by Jonathan Wells
2484:
2447:
1828:
1553:assume good faith
1382:
1196:Butler University
851:Russell Humphreys
838:Russell Humphreys
695:Charles W. Colson
682:as mentioned by "
644:by Jonathan Wells
477:
399:
378:
353:
232:
231:
228:
155:assume good faith
2907:
2894:
2850:
2848:
2830:, in particular
2826:: Article fails
2744:by Mark Fellowes
2723:by William Paley
2720:Natural Theology
2693:
2640:
2554:
2537:reliable sources
2515:
2499:reliable sources
2475:
2465:
2438:
2428:
2300:
2283:reliable sources
2189:personal attacks
2049:my google search
2037:
2021:reliable sources
1922:
1848:Inherit the Wind
1827:
1825:
1820:
1786:
1749:
1665:
1660:
1523:liking something
1507:ScienceApologist
1457:
1441:reliable sources
1429:ScienceApologist
1364:
1340:
1337:
1334:
1245:reliable sources
1126:reliable sources
720:Natural Theology
673:The Big Argument
635:by Harun Yahya,
626:by Harun Yahya,
617:by Harun Yahya,
599:by Harun Yahya,
517:reliable sources
476:
474:
469:
398:
396:
391:
377:
375:
370:
352:
350:
345:
260:in a neutral way
226:
214:
198:
182:
163:
133:, but instead a
124:
117:
108:
90:
34:
2915:
2914:
2910:
2909:
2908:
2906:
2905:
2904:
2903:
2897:deletion review
2890:
2846:
2844:
2838:and would fail
2715:by Chuck Colson
2683:
2630:
2544:
2505:
2455:
2418:
2384:reliable source
2308:Graham's Number
2290:
2272:of references.
2236:personal attack
2027:
1912:
1821:
1816:
1776:
1739:
1663:
1658:
1555:. Thank you. --
1447:
1338:
1335:
1332:
1137:UNC-Chapel Hill
470:
465:
392:
387:
371:
366:
346:
341:
279:, non-notable.
216:
204:
188:
172:
159:sign your posts
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2913:
2911:
2902:
2901:
2884:
2882:
2881:
2880:
2879:
2856:
2855:
2820:
2819:
2818:
2817:
2816:
2815:
2814:
2813:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2753:
2745:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2724:
2716:
2700:
2698:
2697:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2611:
2610:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2568:
2433:
2432:
2408:
2403:
2397:
2392:
2387:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2304:
2253:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2214:cruft multiple
2206:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2179:
2178:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2146:
2145:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2088:
2087:
2066:
2042:
2041:
2007:
2006:
1976:
1975:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1933:User:RucasHost
1927:
1926:
1902:
1901:
1888:
1887:
1875:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1833:
1832:
1801:
1800:
1790:
1767:
1766:
1754:
1753:
1726:
1725:
1712:
1695:
1683:
1670:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1513:
1512:
1496:
1495:
1475:
1474:
1461:
1434:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1390:actually added
1352:
1351:
1345:
1339:sch•
1333:•Jim
1325:
1324:
1323:
1293:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1241:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1192:
1182:
1173:
1163:
1153:
1143:
1130:
1129:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1079:
1078:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
993:
992:
991:
990:
940:
939:
938:
937:
903:
902:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
812:
769:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
736:
730:
727:
717:
710:
704:
698:
687:
680:Jonathan Wells
676:
670:
653:
652:
651:
645:
639:
630:
621:
612:
603:
594:
585:
576:
567:
558:
549:
531:
530:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
482:
481:
458:
457:
433:
432:
406:
405:
404:
403:
323:
322:
310:
286:
230:
229:
125:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2912:
2900:
2898:
2893:
2887:
2886:
2885:
2878:
2875:
2871:
2867:
2863:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2854:
2851:
2849:
2841:
2837:
2833:
2829:
2825:
2824:Strong Delete
2822:
2821:
2812:
2809:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2800:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2790:
2786:
2785:
2784:
2781:
2776:
2772:
2771:
2766:
2763:
2759:
2758:
2754:
2751:
2750:
2746:
2743:
2742:
2738:
2737:
2735:
2730:
2729:
2725:
2722:
2721:
2717:
2714:
2713:
2709:
2708:
2706:
2703:
2702:
2701:
2696:
2691:
2687:
2682:
2678:
2675:
2674:
2665:
2662:
2658:
2654:
2650:
2645:
2644:
2643:
2638:
2634:
2629:
2625:
2624:
2623:
2620:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2609:
2606:
2601:
2597:
2595:
2590:
2587:
2586:
2567:
2564:
2559:
2558:
2557:
2552:
2548:
2543:
2538:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2529:
2526:the article.
2524:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2513:
2509:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2491:
2486:
2485:
2483:
2479:
2474:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2463:
2459:
2454:
2449:
2448:
2446:
2443:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2431:
2426:
2422:
2417:
2413:
2409:
2407:
2404:
2401:
2398:
2396:
2393:
2391:
2388:
2385:
2381:
2378:
2377:
2366:
2363:
2359:
2356:
2353:
2350:
2347:
2344:
2341:
2338:
2335:
2331:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2303:
2298:
2294:
2289:
2284:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2275:
2271:
2266:
2264:
2258:
2254:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2246:
2242:
2237:
2233:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2222:
2219:
2215:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2202:
2199:
2195:
2190:
2186:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2177:
2174:
2170:
2167:
2166:
2161:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2144:
2141:
2137:
2133:
2130:
2129:
2118:
2115:
2113:
2108:
2104:
2103:WP:GOOGLEHITS
2100:
2096:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2086:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2065:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2040:
2035:
2031:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2005:
2002:
2000:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1986:google search
1983:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1974:
1971:
1966:
1963:
1962:
1947:
1944:
1943:
1938:
1934:
1929:
1928:
1925:
1920:
1916:
1911:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1900:
1897:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1886:
1883:
1879:
1876:
1874:
1871:
1867:
1866:
1859:
1856:
1855:
1850:
1849:
1844:
1840:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1831:
1826:
1824:
1819:
1813:
1810:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1799:
1796:
1791:
1789:
1784:
1780:
1775:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1765:
1762:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1752:
1747:
1743:
1738:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1724:
1721:
1716:
1713:
1711:
1708:
1704:
1699:
1696:
1694:
1691:
1687:
1684:
1682:
1679:
1674:
1671:
1669:
1666:
1661:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1640:
1639:
1628:
1625:
1621:
1620:that, itself,
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1598:
1595:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1585:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1575:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1561:
1558:
1554:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1540:
1535:
1532:
1528:
1527:similar path.
1524:
1522:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1494:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1473:
1470:
1465:
1462:
1460:
1455:
1451:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1435:
1433:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1419:
1418:
1413:
1410:
1408:
1403:
1400:has 3 edits.
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1384:
1383:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1363:
1360:
1359:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1346:
1344:
1341:
1329:
1326:
1322:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1305:
1302:
1300:
1297:
1294:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1283:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1254:
1251:
1246:
1242:
1240:
1237:
1235:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1191:
1187:
1186:Texas A&M
1183:
1181:
1177:
1174:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1007:
1004:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
989:
986:
982:
981:
980:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
942:
941:
936:
933:
931:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
909:Strong Delete
907:
906:
905:
904:
901:
900:
897:
895:
890:
886:
882:
878:
870:
867:
863:
862:
861:
858:
857:
852:
848:
847:
846:
843:
839:
834:
833:
832:
829:
824:
820:
816:
813:
811:
808:
807:
802:
798:
794:
790:
785:
781:
777:
773:
770:
768:
765:
761:
758:
757:
748:
745:
740:
737:
734:
731:
728:
725:
724:William Paley
721:
718:
715:
711:
708:
705:
702:
699:
696:
692:
691:Nancy Pearcey
688:
685:
681:
677:
674:
671:
668:
665:
664:
662:
661:
660:
657:
654:
649:
646:
643:
640:
638:
634:
631:
629:
625:
622:
620:
616:
613:
611:
607:
604:
602:
598:
595:
593:
589:
586:
584:
580:
577:
575:
571:
568:
566:
562:
559:
557:
553:
550:
548:
544:
541:
540:
538:
535:
534:
533:
532:
529:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
507:
506:
493:
490:
486:
485:
484:
483:
480:
475:
473:
468:
462:
461:
460:
459:
456:
453:
449:
445:
442:in answer to
441:
437:
436:
435:
434:
431:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
402:
397:
395:
390:
383:
382:
381:
376:
374:
369:
363:
362:Strong Delete
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
351:
349:
344:
338:
333:
329:
321:
318:
314:
313:Strong Delete
311:
309:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
287:
285:
282:
278:
275:
274:
273:
272:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
252:
249:
245:
243:
241:
239:
236:
224:
220:
212:
208:
202:
196:
192:
186:
180:
176:
170:
166:
162:
160:
156:
150:
146:
145:
140:
136:
132:
131:
126:
123:
119:
118:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2891:
2888:
2883:
2869:
2865:
2861:
2843:
2823:
2774:
2756:
2748:
2740:
2727:
2719:
2711:
2704:
2699:
2676:
2656:
2648:
2599:
2593:
2588:
2522:
2329:
2269:
2262:
2260:
2256:
2231:
2193:
2184:
2168:
2131:
2111:
2077:
2073:
2056:
2052:
2012:
1998:
1981:
1964:
1940:
1877:
1852:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1822:
1817:
1812:Evilutionist
1811:
1808:
1731:
1714:
1697:
1685:
1672:
1641:
1619:
1520:
1463:
1436:
1420:
1406:
1385:
1356:
1347:
1327:
1295:
1285:
1281:
1266:
1261:
1233:
1220:
1206:
1102:
1084:
971:
967:
963:
962:seen even a
959:
955:
947:
943:
929:
912:
908:
893:
880:
879:
854:
814:
804:
800:
771:
759:
738:
732:
719:
706:
700:
683:
672:
666:
647:
641:
632:
623:
614:
605:
596:
587:
578:
569:
560:
551:
542:
536:
508:
471:
466:
447:
444:his question
439:
422:
418:
415:Google finds
393:
388:
372:
367:
361:
347:
342:
327:
325:
324:
312:
300:
288:
276:
263:
259:
255:
254:
234:
233:
222:
210:
201:sockpuppetry
194:
183:; suspected
178:
164:
152:
148:
142:
134:
128:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
2870:two minutes
2681:FisherQueen
2628:FisherQueen
2542:FisherQueen
2503:FisherQueen
2476:—Preceding
2453:FisherQueen
2416:FisherQueen
2288:FisherQueen
2265:web sites."
2132:Weak delete
2080:web sites.
2025:FisherQueen
1910:FisherQueen
1774:FisherQueen
1737:FisherQueen
1698:Weak delete
1678:Randydeluxe
1464:Strong Keep
1445:FisherQueen
1398:TruthTeller
1377:) has made
1367:TruthTeller
1358:TruthTeller
1310:Kent Hovind
956:TWO MINUTES
714:Harun Yahya
712:Next is by
425:web sites.
332:Creationist
295:, as noted
293:counterpart
289:Strong Keep
2136:WP:SELFPUB
2107:Yilloslime
2095:notability
1994:Yilloslime
1990:notability
1843:Evil-ution
1839:Digression
1703:dave souza
1486:notability
1402:Yilloslime
1229:Yilloslime
925:Yilloslime
889:Yilloslime
828:Homestarmy
821:, namely,
281:Neutrality
135:discussion
2847:Shot info
2600:discusses
2563:Snalwibma
2523:looked at
2473:Snalwibma
2442:Snalwibma
2362:Snalwibma
2245:Snalwibma
2234:. (1) No
2173:Snalwibma
2157:Crockspot
2140:Crockspot
1882:RucasHost
1720:RucasHost
1686:Weak Keep
1469:RucasHost
1073:Jinxmchue
1003:Jinxmchue
948:improving
944:Follow-up
823:this page
764:Jinxmchue
301:2 minutes
191:canvassed
185:canvassed
144:consensus
2690:contribs
2637:contribs
2551:contribs
2512:contribs
2462:contribs
2425:contribs
2382:; not a
2297:contribs
2034:contribs
1942:MastCell
1919:contribs
1854:MastCell
1783:contribs
1746:contribs
1659:– ornis
1454:contribs
1375:contribs
1287:MastCell
1221:Comment.
1086:MastCell
856:MastCell
806:MastCell
537:Comment.
317:Ridernyc
264:deleting
223:username
217:{{subst:
211:username
205:{{subst:
195:username
189:{{subst:
179:username
173:{{subst:
111:View log
2862:Comment
2789:JoshuaZ
2677:Comment
2320:JoshuaZ
2241:soapbox
2232:Comment
2218:JoshuaZ
2068:When I
2057:showing
2013:Comment
1982:Comment
1896:JoshuaZ
1878:Comment
1809:Comment
1795:JoshuaZ
1594:JoshuaZ
1574:JoshuaZ
1490:JoshuaZ
1437:Delete.
1386:Comment
1318:JoshuaZ
1296:comment
1282:Comment
1250:JoshuaZ
1103:Comment
1049:JoshuaZ
1023:JoshuaZ
985:JoshuaZ
968:improve
866:JoshuaZ
842:JoshuaZ
744:JoshuaZ
525:JoshuaZ
248:JoshuaZ
187:users:
84:protect
79:history
2866:before
2832:WP:WEB
2799:Merzul
2780:Merzul
2775:reason
2661:Merzul
2619:NCdave
2605:Merzul
2589:Delete
2528:NCdave
2490:NCdave
2330:really
2274:NCdave
2198:NCdave
2194:13,200
2185:Please
2169:Delete
2097:. See
2082:NCdave
2061:NCdave
1970:NCdave
1823:Marlin
1818:Orange
1673:Delete
1642:Delete
1624:NCdave
1548:WP:NPA
1544:attack
1482:WP:WEB
1425:WP:WEB
1421:Delete
1328:Delete
1225:WP:WEB
1111:Spryde
1105:I did
921:WP:WEB
883:Fails
881:Delete
819:WP:WEB
780:WP:ORG
776:WP:WEB
772:Delete
656:NCdave
628:p. 235
619:p. 273
610:p. 290
601:p. 183
583:p. 212
565:p. 395
556:p. 129
547:p. 499
521:WP:WEB
509:delete
489:NCdave
472:Marlin
467:Orange
452:NCdave
440:after,
427:NCdave
419:13,200
417:about
413:Well,
394:Marlin
389:Orange
373:Marlin
368:Orange
348:Marlin
343:Orange
277:Delete
88:delete
2874:profg
2872:?) --
2840:WP:EL
2808:profg
2762:profg
2705:Well,
2594:books
2316:WP:OR
2263:other
2153:three
2078:other
2053:other
1965:Keep.
1870:profg
1761:profg
1715:Irony
1690:Filll
1584:profg
1557:profg
1531:profg
1210:profg
1036:profg
976:profg
960:never
637:p.232
592:p. 58
574:p.183
448:other
423:other
305:profg
268:profg
165:Note:
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
2828:WP:N
2686:talk
2659:! --
2653:this
2647:vote
2633:talk
2547:talk
2508:talk
2458:talk
2421:talk
2312:WP:V
2293:talk
2101:and
2030:talk
2017:this
1915:talk
1779:talk
1742:talk
1732:Huh?
1707:talk
1450:talk
1371:talk
1348:Keep
1314:WP:V
1273:talk
1262:Keep
1122:talk
1032:here
972:KEEP
964:stub
952:Talk
919:and
917:WP:N
815:Keep
760:Keep
693:and
328:Keep
297:here
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
2270:lot
1984:My
1654:AiC
1652:or
1650:AiG
1646:ICR
1521:not
1392:by
1268:DGG
913:any
219:csp
215:or
207:csm
175:spa
149:not
109:– (
2688:·
2635:·
2603:--
2549:·
2510:·
2460:·
2423:·
2357:,
2354:,
2351:,
2348:,
2345:,
2342:,
2339:,
2336:,
2318:.
2295:·
2105:.
2032:·
1992:.
1917:·
1841::
1781:·
1744:·
1705:,
1648:,
1582:--
1529:--
1505:.
1467:--
1452:·
1427:.
1373:•
1365:—
1336:62
1316:.
1275:)
1227:.
1208:--
1178:,
1159:,
1149::
1139::
1034:--
887:.
840:.
778:,
225:}}
213:}}
203::
197:}}
181:}}
171::
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
2692:)
2684:(
2649:s
2639:)
2631:(
2553:)
2545:(
2540:-
2514:)
2506:(
2464:)
2456:(
2427:)
2419:(
2402:.
2386:.
2314:/
2299:)
2291:(
2286:-
2243:.
2114:)
2112:t
2110:(
2036:)
2028:(
2001:)
1999:t
1997:(
1921:)
1913:(
1785:)
1777:(
1748:)
1740:(
1664:⚙
1456:)
1448:(
1409:)
1407:t
1405:(
1369:(
1271:(
1236:)
1234:t
1232:(
932:)
930:t
928:(
923:.
896:)
894:t
892:(
326:*
227:.
221:|
209:|
193:|
177:|
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
