531:- When I said "unencyclopaedic rant" etc in nominating this for deletion, what I meant was that the article fails to meet Knowledge (XXG) criteria on at least three grounds. (1) As several people have said here, it's a small phrase, a throwaway remark, in Dawkins's latest book which does not deserve to be elevated to article status. (2) It's original research. (3) It seems to me to be an underhand attempt to push a particular viewpoint. The clue is in the title. Dawkins does not use the phrase "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", he refers to an "Ultimate Boeing 747". The addition of the word "gambit" is the sneaky bit, and the bit which condemns this article to
262:, etc. There seems to be an increasing perception that if twenty different analogies/rhetorical figures have been used to try and make a particular point, each of those analogies should be given its own article, rather than mentioning those analogies or a reasonable subset thereof in an article which is about the point they drive to(and of course, in NPOV fashion, about the counter-point to that point.) Even if the analogy of the "Ultimate Boeing 747"
314:. By all means let's add to the article but please not just supress anything that does not conform to the Atheism POV. The trope that anything that casts doubt on atheism is a "rant against science" should be avoided, if we want a rational discussion. Also there was a link to this long before the article was created, so someone (else) thought there should be an article.
752:
Actually quite relevant - the Bible was written by many people, cobbled together willy-nilly and has internal inconsistencies. It can be picked apart because of this organic construction. The God
Delusion is a single book written by one person and intended as a coherent whole. I've changed my mind
439:
more or less per
Sandstein. The argument is simply not notable enough at this point. We have on Dawkins use of it and that's it (it actually seems to be just a variation of "who designed the designer" anyways) and the last part is definitely OR. If it gets picked up by other people then it might
535:
POV-ness. Gambit is "an action or remark that is calculated to gain an advantage" (Concise OED). By inserting this word the creator of this article is attributing motives to
Dawkins in an underhand way, and the article itself represents a "gambit" on the part of the creationists. There is
205:. Contrary to the nominator's justification, this argument is encyclopedic, and is posed as a rather strong argument AGAINST religion, creationism and the existence of God, by Dawkins, who is a strongly anti-religious atheist. This argument is an expansion of Dawkins' earlier 1986 work in
286:. Both that book and its author are unquestionably notable. But this topic, with respect to notability by itself without reference to the book, is not. (Perhaps in the future it might be.) Else
573:" is as you quote in the article. That dismissive "in its entirety" is another clear demonstration of the article's bad faith and its status as an attempt to push one particular POV.
423:. The main part is quite clearly original research. If someone else uses that argument and it can be cited then fine but for now it is just OR. The first bit should be merged into
302:
One particular argument made in a book is not presumed notable, unless good sources are provided to the contrary. Also, it's mostly unsourced, confused, and unencyclopedic.
330:
in thinking the topic was substantive enough to support an entire
Knowledge (XXG) article. By the way, please cease your accusations of anti-atheist bias, they are not
87:
82:
91:
620:. What follows "Dawkins does not explain what he means by statistically improbable." is not referenced and it is this that is original research and a POV. --
232:
You may wish to go back and look at the article more carefully. That Hoyle and
Dawkins used variations on the same metaphor to make contradicting points,
74:
485:. An individaul argument from any particular book doesn't justify an article unless that argument becomes the source of debate or media coverage. -
240:
be said, I think, of "Obviously p(God|God)=1 and p(God|No_God)=0, which is indeed at least as low as p(X|No_God), but this says nothing useful." --
556:
Dawkins says (op cit p113) "My name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the
Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit."
685:(changed my mind from weak keep as I've edited it and truthfully can't pad this out any more even after re-reading chapter 4. It had way too much
116:
Unencyclopaedic pro-creationist rant against science. Hopelessly and irretrievably POV. Far too small and specific a topic for an article anyway.
452:. The phrase is essentially a neologism created by Richard Dawkins. If important enough for a mention at all, it should be within the context of
673:. Must we have an editorial commentary on every concept ever tossed out in every best-selling book? This is beyond OR, this belongs on a blog.
411:. Unless and until this particular argument becomes a major topic of discussion in reliable sources, this isn't an encyclopedic topic. Cheers,
266:
notable enough to merit its own individual article, this article would still be bad, as pretty much everything except the direct quotes is
737:- A subsection of a popular book does not need its own web page unless it is a book commonly referred to by its subdivisions (like the
185:
17:
78:
648:
on google, not one hit outside of book reviews or excerpts, no MSM usage of the term, etc. Completely non-notable on its own.
181:
773:
757:
745:
725:
713:
693:
677:
654:
624:
612:
600:
577:
560:
544:
519:
496:
464:
444:
431:
415:
391:
373:
361:
347:
343:
Also, it's considered bad form not to mention that you are an article's author when participating in an AfD discussion. --
338:
318:
306:
294:
274:
244:
227:
158:
145:
133:
120:
56:
786:
36:
569:
In that case I stand corrected (I do not have the book to hand) - but you cannot then say that
Dawkins' statement "
236:
is encyclopedic (if, as the nominator says, "Far too small and specific a topic for an article anyway.") The same
70:
62:
785:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
369:
Actually no it isn't (you might want to read the article) and that isn't a reason to keep an article anyways.
742:
344:
335:
271:
241:
177:
674:
408:
207:
53:
595:
173:
167:
155:
326:
I'm not sure that 15 days ago is "long", and even if so, that does not mean that 71.4.131.226 was
514:
508:- Changing my position to straight merge. As edited, the content now clearly justifies merger. -
491:
358:
212:
331:
255:
461:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
670:
129:- I have heard of that topic. Needs citations, needs work but a valid topic none the less.
766:
734:
633:
482:
453:
424:
400:
283:
259:
220:
201:
49:
666:
662:
641:
267:
741:). (What an ironic statement, especially from a person who shares Dawkins's viewpoint!)
722:
388:
196:
686:
637:
770:
649:
592:
412:
303:
291:
142:
130:
765:
There may be a little content worth explaining in a sentence or two back in the main
702:
609:
509:
486:
224:
216:
754:
690:
574:
541:
457:
441:
370:
117:
108:
557:
404:
315:
621:
428:
591:. One person's argument for creationism without any widespread attention.
387:
possibly notable enough to keep; but is very POV and may require merging.
195:
The article is a rather accurate summation of the argument made by
738:
779:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
769:
article, but that could be done without a merge or a redirect.
166:- If it is deleted, other articles will have to incorporate it.
608:
I don't think that it is written with POV and is referenced
104:
100:
96:
357:- it's an argument against the theory of evolution. -
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
789:). No further edits should be made to this page.
282:perhaps the first part (the non-OR part) into
8:
254:and also look carefully at articles such as
689:so I've gutted out what I feel is the OR.
540:as "The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit".
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
322:-- NBeale is the article's author.
24:
154:it just for the amusement value!
456:, not as a separate article.
211:, in which Dawkins rebuts the
1:
774:23:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
758:20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
746:20:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
726:16:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
714:09:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
694:20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
678:22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
655:15:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
625:10:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
613:10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
601:09:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
578:14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
561:13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
545:07:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
520:17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
497:05:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
465:03:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
445:01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
432:00:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
416:22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
392:22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
374:01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
362:21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
348:16:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
339:22:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
319:21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
307:21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
295:21:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
275:21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
245:21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
228:20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
159:20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
146:20:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
134:20:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
121:20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
57:00:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
753:now to Merge/Redirect too.
403:is already covered; so are
806:
636:and this article reeks of
71:Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
63:Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
131:Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
782:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
219:as an argument FOR the
186:few or no other edits
632:It's one portion of
409:Argument from design
208:The Blind Watchmaker
188:outside this topic.
554:Factual correction
213:watchmaker analogy
598:
268:original research
189:
170:14 november 2006
52:after rewrite. ~
797:
784:
767:The God Delusion
735:The God Delusion
711:
708:
705:
652:
634:The God Delusion
596:
483:The God Delusion
454:The God Delusion
440:become notable.
425:The God Delusion
401:The God Delusion
345:Antaeus Feldspar
336:Antaeus Feldspar
284:The God Delusion
272:Antaeus Feldspar
260:Last Thursdayism
256:Russell's teapot
242:Antaeus Feldspar
221:existence of God
202:The God Delusion
171:
150:Oh please let's
112:
94:
50:The God Delusion
34:
805:
804:
800:
799:
798:
796:
795:
794:
793:
787:deletion review
780:
743:George J. Bendo
709:
706:
703:
675:KillerChihuahua
650:
571:in its entirety
215:made famous by
197:Richard Dawkins
85:
69:
66:
54:trialsanderrors
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
803:
801:
792:
791:
776:
760:
749:
748:
731:Merge/Redirect
728:
716:
710:sch•
704:•Jim
696:
683:Merge/Redirect
680:
657:
627:
615:
603:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
564:
563:
548:
547:
525:
524:
523:
522:
500:
499:
467:
447:
434:
418:
394:
378:
377:
376:
352:
351:
350:
341:
309:
297:
277:
249:
248:
247:
190:
161:
156:Laurence Boyce
148:
136:
114:
113:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
802:
790:
788:
783:
777:
775:
772:
768:
764:
761:
759:
756:
751:
750:
747:
744:
740:
736:
732:
729:
727:
724:
720:
717:
715:
712:
700:
697:
695:
692:
688:
684:
681:
679:
676:
672:
668:
664:
661:
658:
656:
653:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
628:
626:
623:
619:
616:
614:
611:
607:
604:
602:
599:
594:
590:
587:
586:
579:
576:
572:
568:
567:
566:
565:
562:
559:
555:
552:
551:
550:
549:
546:
543:
539:
538:no such topic
534:
533:irretrievable
530:
527:
526:
521:
518:
516:
511:
507:
504:
503:
502:
501:
498:
495:
493:
488:
484:
480:
477:
476:
472:
468:
466:
463:
459:
455:
451:
448:
446:
443:
438:
435:
433:
430:
426:
422:
419:
417:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:
393:
390:
386:
382:
379:
375:
372:
368:
365:
364:
363:
360:
359:Richardcavell
356:
353:
349:
346:
342:
340:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:
323:
320:
317:
313:
310:
308:
305:
301:
298:
296:
293:
289:
285:
281:
278:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
230:
229:
226:
222:
218:
217:William Paley
214:
210:
209:
204:
203:
198:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
169:
165:
162:
160:
157:
153:
149:
147:
144:
140:
139:Strong delete
137:
135:
132:
128:
125:
124:
123:
122:
119:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
781:
778:
762:
730:
718:
698:
682:
659:
646:Only 32 hits
645:
629:
617:
605:
588:
570:
553:
537:
532:
528:
512:
505:
489:
478:
474:
470:
469:
449:
436:
420:
396:
384:
380:
366:
354:
327:
321:
311:
299:
287:
279:
263:
251:
237:
233:
206:
200:
192:
163:
151:
138:
126:
115:
45:
43:
31:
28:
405:Creationism
193:Strong Keep
184:) has made
127:Strong Keep
723:Mukadderat
389:Hello32020
385:Weak Merge
771:Edhubbard
593:Sjakkalle
413:Sam Clark
304:Sandstein
292:Baccyak4H
143:Snalwibma
141:per nom.
610:Graemec2
597:(Check!)
510:Kubigula
487:Kubigula
407:and the
225:Alansohn
182:contribs
174:Ggilberd
168:ggilberd
755:Ttiotsw
721:essay.
701:per KC
691:Ttiotsw
671:WP:NPOV
651:*Spark*
618:Comment
575:Gnusmas
542:Gnusmas
529:Comment
506:Comment
458:Joyous!
442:JoshuaZ
371:JoshuaZ
367:Comment
300:Delete.
118:Gnusmas
88:protect
83:history
763:Delete
719:Delete
699:Delete
667:WP:NOR
663:WP:NOT
660:Delete
642:WP:POV
630:Delete
589:Delete
558:NBeale
471:Delete
450:Delete
437:Delete
421:Delete
397:Delete
316:NBeale
288:delete
252:Delete
238:cannot
92:delete
739:Bible
687:WP:OR
638:WP:OR
622:Bduke
479:Merge
429:Bduke
334:. --
332:CIVIL
328:right
280:Merge
270:. --
109:views
101:watch
97:links
48:into
46:Merge
16:<
640:and
606:Keep
475:weak
462:Talk
427:. --
381:Keep
355:Keep
312:Keep
234:that
178:talk
164:Keep
152:keep
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
733:to
644:.
515:ave
492:ave
481:to
473:or
383:or
264:was
199:in
707:62
669:,
665:,
460:|
399:.
290:.
258:,
223:.
180:•
172:—
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
517:)
513:(
494:)
490:(
176:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.