Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip


 * 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 Delete.  E LIMINATOR JR  23:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is either an inappropriate commercial article, or creationist harassment, or a bad joke. Filll 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 *  Delete Merge Copyvio from linked page, advertising. NCSE is actually an anti-creationism organization.  Either way, this is spam.    Acroterion  (talk)  20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not copyright violoation, not advertising. Nobody said that the NCSE was not an anti-creationism organization.  Read the article.  Happy Couple 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC) — Happy Couple (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I read it. Rafts go down the Colorado on a daily basis, carrying all manner of folk.  What is notable about a raft-borne lecture on creationism/evolution/geology?    Acroterion  (talk)  21:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It was written about in a peer reviwed scientific journal and over at Panda's Thumb, a reliable source per consensus. Happy Couple 21:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern isn't WP:VERIFIABILITY - I agree the trip exists: it's WP:NOTABILITY, which is established by multiple independent sources. Linking back to NCSE and Panda's Thumb doesn't help there.  I note that somebody's found a NYT reference, which is better.  I endorse Wesley R. Elsberry's proposal to put this in the NCSE article - it's just a raft trip with lectures, which doesn't warrant its own encyclopedia article.  Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (Project Steve) isn't a valid argument.    Acroterion  (talk)  22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Acroterion, I think that this is a move in a game to put the "Project Steve" page up for deletion, not to urge retention of this one because "Project Steve" has a page. --Wesley R. Elsberry 23:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of activity around that article, with editors warming up COI arguments and so on, but it isn't directly germane to the topic at hand.   Acroterion  (talk)  01:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just directly germane to whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was intended as the form of argument by "Happy Couple". Seems to me that the actual case is the obverse, that an existing article should go away because of an AfD of another article. I don't know if there is a cool WikiName for that. --Wesley R. Elsberry 03:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works both ways. If Project Steve is proposed as an AfD, the discussion will stand on its own, and I doubt we will lack for participants.  Until then, the subject is rafting. We can't debate a hypothetical AfD.   Acroterion  (talk)  03:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "We can't debate a hypothetical AfD." True enough. But we can examine what "Happy Couple" is actually doing with (1) creating an unnecessary article (2) making slurs concerning the organization associated with the content of the unnecessary article and (3) making sure to diminish an established article about a notable topic in several places, including the actual AfD for the article he himself created. You noted the invocation of Project Steve before, but it seemed to me that your evaluation of its significance was not correct. Rather than going another round with the, "But we're not discussing Project Steve" thing, we could just agree to disagree on what "Happy Couple"'s unsubtle allusions to it mean. --Wesley R. Elsberry 04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is only that Project Steve has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, per Wikipedia policy.   Acroterion  (talk)  18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete This blongs on wikisatireapedia. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Speedy Merge Meets notability (pandas thumb). May need a little work.  Happy Couple 21:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC) — Happy Couple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Explain. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a part of the ongoing culture wars, and is notable, and could (if any concerns were expressed) be made encyclopdiac. Happy Couple 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to establish encyclopedic value. -- Ec5618 21:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment More references all the time. Could you identify the specific criteria you think the article fails to meet?  This trip is notable, has been occuring at least since 2003.  Help work on the article.  Happy Couple 21:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'll write an article on my last vacation next. Jauerback 21:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Unlike a typical vacation, this trip has been mentioned in peer reviewed scientific journal, as well as Panda's thumb. Happy Couple 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. ornis ( t ) 21:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete Merge I don't think anyone desperately needs to know this. The NCSE can so its own advertising. --  Wolfie  Inu  21:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment LOL, The NCSE uses wikipedia for this. See this wikiscanner.  Happy Couple 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand there's been some talk about this lately. Don't know if it's true, but be that as it may, I'll let an advertisement stay on WP over my dead body. ... No, not literally! Don't kill me! :)  Wolfie  Inu  22:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Glad you have a sense of humor. This article is at least as notable as Project Steve, as it has promotional and critique, was mentioned in a scientific journal, as well as Panda's thumb.  No talkorigins that I can find, unfortunately.  Not really an advertisement.  It is interesting, akin to other stunts pulled in the culture wars.  Happy Couple 22:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see a particular need for a separate article. This could be noted in the NCSE article and link to an NCSE page on a past trip. For those who are arguing about notability, there was notice of the 2005 trip in the New York Times. --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, concerning that crack about the notability of Project Steve, one should consider the public notice of Project Steve. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and as spam. Ford MF 22:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Alas, it has no sources to establish notability - the Panda's Thumb reference does not satisfy WP:RS in my book.  ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not arguing for keeping the article as a separate article, but I'd be interested in hearing about when the New York Times became a non-notable source. --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The NYT article is about the Grand Canyon and its role in the creationism/evolution debate, it is not about the NCSE trip. At best the NCSE raft trip recieves incidental mention which is certainly not sufficient to establish notability. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree, but the Jodi Wilgoren NYT article I linked is essentially a split-it-down-the-middle report on two rafting groups, one an antievolutionist group guided by Tom Vail, and the other the NCSE-sponsored trip. Calling half the article "incidental mention" doesn't strike me as an accurate summary. --Wesley R. Elsberry 23:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment "It is interesting, akin to other stunts pulled in the culture wars." Happy Couple's comment is ironic, given that the page history shows that it was Happy Couple's stunt. I call troll. --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Good call, Acroterion. I support a merge with the main NCSE article, as the material does deserve to be mentioned somewhere - not enough for its own article, though --  Wolfie  Inu  23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Geez, I think the world of the NCSE, but this is non-notable (is that a word?) cruft. And if comes from Panda's Thumb, then it's probably some creationist cruft too.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that NCSE did not create the article. The article was created by "Happy Couple". Look at "Happy Couple"'s comments about NCSE on this page. I see a pattern here; "Happy Couple" is not trying to do NCSE any favors. Failure to recognize that it's a setup will make "Happy Couple" that much happier. --Wesley R. Elsberry 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as spam. This is simply an advert see here. BlueValour 12:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article was created expressly to provoke supporters of evolution by a creationist troll, who is probably a sock puppet, and probably has been banned here repeatedly before. Making such trivial articles is an effort to cast the anti-creationists in a bad light, and make fun of them. If we keep it, it makes pro-scientists look silly and petty. If we get rid of it, this sock puppet will attempt to claim we should get rid of Project Steve on the same basis. It is just an effort to make us jump through a creationist's hoops and mock us all. I say delete all his articles, and block this troll.


 * The topic of this article is not particularly noteworthy, even though it was published in the New York Times, as noted above. It is not particularly relevant. It is not really encyclopedic. Sure Wikipedia can include this level of fine detail, but should it? Should we have a separate article on every field trip you can go on hosted by a creationist? Every type of lecture given by a park ranger in every national park in the world? Every individual park ranger and their specialties? Surely at some point this starts to reach the point of vanishing returns, even if Dr. Scott is a notable figure in this case. To leave this as a real article is to cater to a creationist troll. It is more akin to advertising, which we should attempt to minimize in Wikipedia, particularly in this instance.--Filll 13:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Whatever the motives of the creator of this article, the material is not noteworthy enough for its own article. If WP went through all information with this fine a sieve, the sheer volume of information would become unmanageable (some argue that it already is!). If the material must be here, then let's move it to Eugenie C. Scott or somewhere. --  Wolfie  Inu  12:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable activity. While giving the outward appearance of an advertisement, it does seem to written as to have a subtle air of making those involved appear hypocritical and illogical, for example that the lady presenting the creatonist view is "a leading critic of creationism" according to her article.  Yep, nothing ensures a lively debate quite like everybody being on the same side. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve - I think in order to keep, some editor(s) should commit to making this an encyclopedic article. At the moment it is mainly a direct quotation of the ironic tone of ncseweb.org &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2007 (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.