Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Watson (creationist)


 * 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  "and on the 7th day the Lord sayeth No consensus and went for a nice lie down." (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

David Watson (creationist)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article has been on wikipedia for nearly three years and does not have a single WP:RS. Seems to have marginal importance writing three fringe books from Christian "Science" publishers 30 years ago. Delete as non-notable. We66er (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because the lack of referenced information about him prevents a worthwhile encyclopedia article to be written, but not because of the "incorrectness" of his views. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Obscure and minor creationist. None of his books achieved any prominence. Therefore not notable. Only reference currently in article is a broken citation to an unreliable source quoting brief mention in a further unreliable source. HrafnTalkStalk 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added a article from the Daily Nebraskan as a reference. Note that at least two of the books cited were reprinted subsequent to their original publication. He seems to have written many more books than the three mentioned. See http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3ADavid+Charles+Cuningham+Watson&qt=hot_author, and a number of them were published by Hodder and Stoughton, a recognizable mainstream publisher. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly, Worldcat proves an unreliable source on this point -- some, perhaps most, of the books there attributed to David CC Watson were in fact written by David CK Watson. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Eastmain. Note that at least one of his books listed at that link was published by Inter-Varsity Press, a major christian publishing house. Perhaps the article should be renamed from (creationist) to (author)? Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Inter-Varsity Press is in fact two publishing houses. The British one (with the hyphen, which was presumably Watson's publisher for the book in question) is the "publishing arm of Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship" ("membership of approximately 10,000-15,000"), and most probably not "a major christian publishing house". HrafnTalkStalk 17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * IVP is (or at least was) a significant christian publishing house. The problem is however that Worldcat has miscatalogued many of the books, it attributes to him.  I have managed to link 5 of the 21 definitely to him from other bibliographic sites, but not others, at least some of which are definitely NOT by him.  See my furhter comment below.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- He was certainly significant enough for David Watson (evangelist) to have to write as David C K Watson. The disambiguator "creationist" is unsatisfactory as only one of the three books listed is about creation.  However I would oppose the disambiguator "author", which would justifiably apply equally to the more significant David C K Watson.  Accordingly Rename to David C C Watson, which was (after all) the style under which he wrote.  The source cited by Eastmain lists 21 works (plus three translations into perhaps Welsh and Korean, plus two probably misidentified as his).  NN authors do not usually get translated.  By all means tag as "unreferenced".  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete' the one reference cited is a student opinion piece in a college newspaper.If he's notable, there should be something better to be found than that. DGG (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; I recall him being cited in Christian magazines in the 1980s, requiring the distinction that Peterkingiron states above. Rename as David C. C. Watson (with dots). The title "David Watson (author)" is already taken by yet another person, and probably needs to be a disambiguation page. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note I have moved what was David Watson (author) to David Watson (anarchist) and redirected its old page to David Watson, which is a disambiguation page. I have also been through all articles that link to the old title and changed them to the new one.  We do not need another disambiguation page. I do not propose to PROD David Watson (author) as unnecessary (though it is), because I have not altered technical pages from projects etc.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete this person has not been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Obscure is right, if he ever was in the limelight it was very brief and not in any way lasting. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability established by third-party sources. Biruitorul Talk 23:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not too notable, but I added a couple of obits - from The Hindu, very short, but has biographical data, and a creationist magazine, longer; a decent article can then be built from these, (which may be useful in tracking down more obscure data), his publication list per Eastmain and a few passing mentions in other RS's.John Z (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The CSM source that John Z found indicates that he retired from that organization in 1995. A google book result (from Intervarsity, see later) says that he went to India as a missionary after the war, which in context would mean after WWII.  So his professional/active period ran from circa 1945-49 to circa 1995; before the web explosion - when most materials were not published online.  Thus online searching is of limited value; the bulk of reviews of his work and the like would be in print sources and probably not available online.  The following additional reliable sources are also useful for expanding the article: web copy of 1990 magazine article gives his primary influence as a creationist; this web page shows he was a founder (the single individual typically named by those from IFES as the UESI founder was a founder of the second unit of that branch, not the first unit which David was a founding member of and which founded before the IFES affiliated second unit) of what has since become the branch in India (the UESI) of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (USA branch: InterVarsity Christian Fellowship; UK branch: Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship).  The following additional online reliable sources that are demonstrate his significance without being useful for our article: Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (pg 817) cites him as a modern exemplar of a particular theological perspective; this web copy of a 1997 or earlier article in a creationist magazine names him as a "leading creationist".  All in all, a clear keep, but research in dead tree sources will likely be required to produce a good article.  GRBerry 04:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have been asked by Eastmain to "revisit" my original opinion above. So what do we have in the article to date: two obituaries (one extremely brief, one in the newsletter of the Creation Science Movement with which he was closely associated), a one sentence quote in the Daily Nebraskan and a brief biographical sketch attached to a piece Watson himself wrote in some Christian newsletter. As to sources not yet in the article, The Creationists does mention him three times, but the only solid mention for his being fired from a teaching position for incompetence (the other two are a bare mention & a quote from him on Morris' & Whitcomb's books). The Answers in Genesis piece that GRBerry links to is by Watson, not about him. The UESI piece just gives him three very brief mentions, that does not list him as the "founder" of anything, nor as the central driving force (just as a participant in a meeting that led to the group's formation, the editor of the group's "student newsletter" and a participant in the group's "Central Committee"). The biblicalstudies.org.uk piece (which is at best a questionable source) simply has him in a table of answers to 7 questions, and does not discuss him any further than that. Does this amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (per WP:NOTE) or Watson's meeting any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. The answer is still no (so my opinion is still "delete"). HrafnTalkStalk 05:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC) On closer examination, biblicalstudies.org.uk is self-published (by Robert I. Bradshaw) and so cannot be used as a source on a third party. HrafnTalkStalk 04:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sure it's a stub article, but there's nothing wrong with that. Understand the difference between "verifiable" and "verified" -- Because it looks like he's no longer alive, it is unlikely that he will be used as online sources in the future much, but that doesn't negate the notability.  Could use some cleanup/etc.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: what "notability" is there to negate? Has WP:BIO been re-written to state that if a person receives a couple of obituaries (one extremely brief, one in a very minor and associated publication), wrote a few articles (likewise in very minor publications) and books, and receives the briefest of mentions in a few marginal sources they are 'notable'? If so, I haven't seen it. There is no indication that Watson's writings received any real attention outside of the creationist community or that they were influential within it. What verifiable "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has he received? The most significant source (in both depth & prominence) to date only attests to his incompetence as a teacher. WP:ONEEVENT would seem to apply, but if people insist that he is notable, we could rename the article to David Watson (incompetent teacher). HrafnTalkStalk 13:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment sorry, I didn't mean to upset you, just wanted to express my take on the subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You did not "upset" me, but the level of proof by assertion frequently found on AfDs does rather irritate me. HrafnTalkStalk 14:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Voted for Keep above -- I have just expanded the article, using references found by others. On investigation some ofm the works found by Eastmain |here are listed on other bibiographic sites as by "David Watson" or even "David C K Watson" and seem to have been misidentified.  However, it is clear that the subject here was an early proponent of the modern creationist view.  These views are of course controversial, but they are views genuinely held by a significant number of people, and hence encyclopaedic.  This in turn makes the subject of this article notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know secularists regard creationism as a non-event. However the relationship between the book of Genesis and science is a significant issue for Christians.  Some of their views are extremely on the fringe, but not necessarily all.  I appreciate that one of the sources is autobiographical, but this is not self-serving: ultimately it is praising his mentor, Hannington Enoch.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong on both counts. (i) Creationism is not "a significant issue" for all Christians -- it is mainly an issue with conservative Evangelicals (and a smaller number of conservative Catholics), which constitutes a minority within Christianity. Many of the most vocal critics of this pseudoscience are themselves devout Christians, who would be justifiably insulted that you label them as "secularists". (ii) Watson was not a prominent Creationist. He was not a leader of the Evolution Protest Movement, nor did his books have any discernible impact. Whether his 'autobiographical' material was "self serving" or not is irrelevant as it has zero value for determining notability, regardless. HrafnTalkStalk 11:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Peter was challenging the "Primary sources" tag; I agree with him and have removed it. As for Watson's notability, I recall clearly that he was prominent in the UK in 1970s-80s, but it would take time to locate paper citations, as proposed above by GRBerry. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTE: "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large." Memories of 20-40 years ago have a tendency to play tricks (magnifying things with personal relevance, minimising things without it) -- which is why wikipedia notability policies depend on WP:RSs, not OR. HrafnTalkStalk 14:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough innuendo. Please be more specific in your reasons. I cannot figure out whether you are alleging that Robert Bradshaw, or the Biblical Creation Society, or myself, had a strong connection to David CC Watson. For the record, I never read a thing by him. I did, however, buy a book by David CK Watson for somebody else, and do remember the difference between them. IMHO it would make Wikipedia a more useful encyclopedia to retain a stub about David CC W to distinguish him from DCKW and other David Watsons (pending expansion from reliable paper sources). - Fayenatic (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No innuendo involved -- merely replying in the context that you yourself set here. "Works by [the UESI] are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large" (outside the confines of the Indian student Evangelical community, of which Watson was a part). This issue is separate from that of Bradshaw, which I've already replied to fully on article-talk. HrafnTalkStalk 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability and primary sources are separate issues. No-one is claiming that his role in establishing UESI made him notable. To demonstrate notability, time is needed to track down paper records about his role in creationism.  It doesn't help that you've been removing uncited material just four weeks after tagging it. The argument about UESI is about primary sources - it was your edit summary that labelled the UESI as "associated with him", 57 years on. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the template -- "Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article." "Sources affiliated with the subject" is clearly describing sources that are not indepedent of the subject -- with what is "independent" being defined in WP:NOTE. As far as removing material, the material (i) had a broken, unreliable source (ii) had previously been deleted from the article. HrafnTalkStalk 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, they are not sufficient on their own, but this article has other sources too. As for removing material, I was referring to Watson's service as director of the ICR, not his role in the Huxley debate. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment on added sources: This obituary, listed as a source above and proof of notability, says nothing about his life or his work. There is a simply trival mention (the obituary) and a marginal mention (a brief obituary on a creationist website) which is not enough to warrant an article. Church/creationist mentions and a one/two sentence obituary is not wikiworthy. If this happens to some of best sourcing that can be done I affirm deletion. [Eastmain asked me to revisit my comments.]We66er (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable person, plain and simple. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable person - even with the kitchen sink thrown in. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. He may not have been the most notable person, but that does not make him non-notable. I think the new additions to this article prove that it is worth keeping. Also some strong arguments given by Peterkingiron and others above. Formicarius (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing Admin The above editor, Formicarius, created a new account yesterday after this discussion began. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification -- I still assert that the relationship between the early chapters of Genesis and modern scientific theories of origins are a problem that Christians have to address. My statement that the subject wrote as David C C Watson is possibly not quite correct; the basis of what I said was in fact that David C K WAtson wrote with that style to distinguish himself from another David Watson.  I think I picked that up orally in the 1970s.  The added sources provide a basis for facts about the subject.  Being among the founders of the Evangelical Union of Students of India, provides minor notability, as does the publication of books.  I am unable to judge how notable the books were.  I suspect the sources on this would be reviews in the Christian press at the time of ther publication.  These sources are not readily available to most of us.  My first reaction was that he was more notable than I now believe, but still notable enough for the article to be kept - as voted above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, none of the sources in the article establish notability, they mention him in passing and his work seems to have had little long-term influence. As the tag line of the article he wrote says "David C.C. Watson is a former missionary schoolmaster." - that seems a good summary of his importance. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (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.