Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)


 * 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 Keep. While the article may not be written optimally right now, it seems that Wells is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article under current general and specific notability guides. NW ( Talk ) 18:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

According to Wikipedia's "General Notability Guidelines" WP:GNG an topic needs to have been covered in depth in secondary sources before an article is possible. This article (as of now) has 67 sources cited. However they are all primary sources. One group is Dr. Wells' own writings and websites of organizations he is affiliated with. The other is writings of people who disagree with him and are telling us why his theories are wrong. As far as I can see there is no secondary source which gives general information on him in a neutral way. As important as he may be I don't see how this article is possible under WP's stated policies and guidelines. Wolfview (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Hmm, wow. (Disclaimer: I am a member of the Unification Church, along with Jonathan. I personally think he is barking up the wrong tree. God did create the Universe, but He used regular science to do it -- not special creation science.) Having said that, this article does have problems but it has improved a lot over the last couple of years.  I myself have written articles putting together scraps from different sources. That's not ideal but in this case the information seems to be accurate and a person having read the article will know something about him.  He is well known enough to merit an article here.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I myself have written articles putting together scraps from different sources." That sounds like WP:Original research to me. Wolfview (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the article I had in mind: Religion Newswriters Association. 22 sources, but none (except for the organization's own website) that cover it in depth. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wolfview, I've had disagreements with Steve in the past, mostly regarding POV issues, but he does try to write good articles and the method of which he speaks seems OK to me, at least to start off...see my comment below.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This guy's just not notable Czolgolz (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Wells is a prominent member of the intelligent design movement. His book Icons of Evolution and related material makes him meet WP:CREATIVE under 1 and 4c. Moreover, the claim by the nominator is slightly misleading in that much of the material by his opponents is in fact in peer reviewed literature and thus are reliable sources. Such sources in the article include Brauer and Forrest's article in the Washington University Law Quarterly, and the article by Pennock in the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, and there are other articles of a similar nature which are not currently used as sources. There are other sources in the article which while not focusing directly on Wells are also clearly reliable sources from independent individuals. For example, the Vancouver Sun article discusses his denial of the HIV-AIDS connection. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to say that the publications were bad or unreliable. But still I don't see even one that gives general information about Wells. Most seem to be opinion pieces to refute his ideas -- hence primary sources, as are Wells own writings.  I don't think an article "Jonathan Wells in his own words" would fly. Nor would "Why Jonathan Wells's theories are wrong."  So I don't think you can put the two together to make one article. Wolfview (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also don't question his prominance, just the lack of secondary sources to justify an article here.Wolfview (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. AFD is not for cleanup. The subject satisfies WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources are needed as well as a notable subject, according to WP's own policies. Wolfview (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This is a very well-done article, written in a neutral tone. You may think the man a wackidoodle, but this is not about whether the theories and writings of the subject are kooky, only whether he is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia as a notable public figure. He is. Carrite (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As with all marginally notable BLPs this carries too much potential for mischief. (I don't buy into the "flagged revisions will solve all of our problems!" argument.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to his book(s) might be a better option? Guettarda (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep. I used the same argument against another kook, (who, I believe, was decided to be notable under WP:ENTERTAINER, although not otherwise under WP:GNG or WP:PROF), and now believe that the argument does more harm than good.  WP:CREATIVE seems to make this kook notable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - yes, the sourcing is weak (I hadn't realise how weak - times change, standards change, but not every article keeps up) but Forrest & Gross and Migliucci's books are reliable secondary sources. And he does pass WP:GNG. Guettarda (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Undeniably notable, and the sourcing appears to be passable though it could use some improvements. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewrite and shorten, using basic facts. The article is obviously edited by people with a strong POV against creationism and his religion, and who seem to have some personal animosity towards him. Wells has some respectable credentials, and has written a couple of controversial books. He is not even a young earth creationist. I really do not think that it is notable that he once signed an online AIDS petition in 1991 or that he defended his religion's views on marriage. There is not even any need to spell out various criticisms of him. Any simple neutral description of his books will make it obvious that he is disagreeing with some mainstream scientific views. There are plenty of other WP articles on those scientific issues. Roger (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are specific problems falling under our biographies of living persons policy we should address them. Deleting the article doesn't seem necessary at this point, however. Wells is a fairly well known figure in a field of pseudoscience and we have ample sources for at least a start level article about him.  Should Wells himself ask for the article to be deleted that could conceivably change things.  Absent such a request, we should keep and improve the article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC) copied from talk page as requested dave souza, talk 19:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as clearly notable person, the article can be improved. . dave souza, talk 19:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Well known figure in the field of pseudoscience, though sourcing is weak.  Teapot  george Talk  20:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep notable crank. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - NNDB deems him notable. --Yopienso (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They also say he was born in 1956, when WP's article says he was in the United States Army in 1966. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly the problem with articles based on "scraps." Wolfview (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per nominator saying he's "important". If the only reason to delete is a technicality, then maybe we need to change the rules. He's probably the world's foremost opponent of naturalistic evolution, and if we delete the article on him then opponents of evolution will find it much harder to locate anti-evolution arguments. There's enough censorship of alternate POV's as it is. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed, surely you mean he's one of the bunch of leading proponentsists of supernaturalistic anti-evolution? No need for a red link ;-) . dave souza, talk 20:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The world's foremost opponent? Really? He's high up on the list of intelligent design proponents but I'd be very curious as to what metric makes him the "the world's foremost opponent of naturalistic evolution" with contenders including Ken Ham, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I exaggerated, but if he's high up on the list of intelligent design proponents, then we can close this with a speedy keep. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that the issue of lack of reliable secondary sources has not been addressed, even if we all know how important he is. Wolfview (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. We do not delete articles because of a percieved lack of secondary sources, we find the secondary sources and add them.  Honestly, that's really how it works.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What happens if secondary sources are not found? The article was started in 2004. Here is the first version.Wolfview (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...you're an editor too, right? Your job, like mine, is to improve the articles on wiki, right?  Have you looked for sources or did you just nominate it for deletion?  The reality is this: Wells is most certainly notable and merits an article. You just might have to dig around for sources.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just spent some time checking Google news, books, and scholar. I found books by Wells and some news stories that mention him or quote him, but nothing much that tells us anything about him. Wolfview (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And? There's stuff out there, but what are you looking for?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 04:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Something that gives "significant coverage," as required by WP:GNG.Wolfview (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. A notable crank - oops - I mean person. Improve refs rather than delete. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:Attack page. If you look at the original article it's fairly clear that the purpose was to discredit Wells. A lot has been added since (including some sources) but still there seems to be a negative  slant.  Also his notability is not asserted.  The article starts by saying he's an author but then goes into his religion.  I don't think an article on a notable author, say Orson Scott Card, would start out: "Orson Scott Card is a science fiction author. A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, he has said the teachings of his religion have been an inspiration for his work..." Borock (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked out Card's article. The intro does mention his religion, but it also tells us why he is important as an author -- something this article does not. Borock (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was not intended to discredit Wells nor does it do so. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 14:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a reasonable person could disagree, based on the original page: . Borock (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, do you think that revision should be deleted? I see no way a reasonable person could believe that the current page is an attack page.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The main points the original page made, that he wrote an unscientific book and that he belongs to the Unification Church (or as it put it a "Moony"), are still the main points made by the current article. Just more detail has been added, plus the thing of him having signed an anti-AIDS petition in the 1990s.Borock (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So we should avoid the truth when it is distasteful (to even 'one' editor)? Nothing in this article is untrue.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia BLP policy is not mainly about "the truth." Borock (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * not "mainly". eh? F the encyclopdedic attempts to be accurate, yes? Reality sux so they say.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 06:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Truth and reality are the goals, but they have to be filtered through WP policies, like WP:N WP:RS and WP:BLP, before they are reported in an article.Wolfview (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I say that the article is an attack page. It has some very silly things in it, such as repeating some ad hominem attacks from a debate opponent. It is obvious that a debate opponent disagrees with Wells, and we don't need WP to tell us that the debate opponent badmouthed him. Roger (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually another example of the weakness of the sources, if you have to quote one person's opinion about another person to find something to fill up the article.Wolfview (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course you do, of course you do -- no real surprise, eh Rog?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW: what are the "ad hominem attacks"? Do tell.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.