Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daylight Origins Society (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   Speedy Keep (non-admin closure), previous AFD closed only a few days ago. Closing to prevent further disruption. Firefly322 (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)"

Daylight Origins Society
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:CORP. Rationale:


 * Q:Is it the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources? Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. A: No. This organization was mentioned off-handedly in one NYTimes article, is listed (not discussed) in the offerings of groups attempting to document the existence of every creationist organization in Brittan (such as Christians in Science and the BCSE), and is sometimes sited by other unreliable sources such as likeminded creationists. Independent, secondary sources are not found.
 * 1) The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. This is clearly evident for this organization which received notice only from local groups and other creationists.
 * 2) Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories. It is my opinion that the coverage of this group falls under this characterization.

Therefore, by our criteria of notability, this group does not pass muster.

Let them become more famous and get some people other than creationists and local creationist watchdog groups to take notice of their campaigns. Then we will have established notability and have the chance for writing an encyclopedic article about them. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, umm, this was just put up for deletion a week ago. The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DP. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep first AfD closed 4 days ago at time of nomination. DRV is that way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:03, 18 September 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.