Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments


 * 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 MERGE into PZ Myers. The raw total were 6 Keep (1 being Keep or Merge), 3 Delete (1 being Delete or Merge), and 8 Merge. 1 Keep vote is that editor's only edit so far, so if we disregard that and elect to read both the "...or Merge" comments as Merge leaves 4 Keep, 2 Delete, and 10 Merge. That seems to be quite a clear consensus to merge, and although the comments regarding the non-notability of the article subject are well taken, they don'd seem to be enough to overcome the general consensus to merge, in my opinion. Herostratus 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments
POV article, poorly written article on non-encyclopedic content.

A semi-supported half-joke argument against creationism. Possibel internet phenomenom. I'm putting more under Things made up in school; teachers can make things up too. PZ Myers and Jim Pinkoski deserve articles, but not this one-part-of-the-joke concept.--ZayZayEM 13:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Created by User:Outeast, whose only edits thus far have been this article's creation, and craete a link from dwarf (disambiguation)--ZayZayEM 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Google the statement "If you doubt this is possible how is it there are pygmies" (the plus sign stuffs it up) - I got 72 hits just now. Note: people can't agree on wether it is Dwarfs or dwarves.--ZayZayEM 13:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A Google search isn't going to give accurate numbers on this. From the citations I've collected so far, many people don't quote the first part of the phrase (instead, they finish a sentence with some variation of "PYGMIES + DWARFS!!"). Even those who attempt to quote the entire quostion usually don't do it accurately. I'm not asserting that the phrase is common, but I am asserting that your proposed search string (and the results from it), don't reveal whether the phrase is common or not. Sanguinity 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unencyclopedic topic for an article. Flying Jazz 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into PZ Myers. Sanguinity 15:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. At best it's a neologism, at worst it's a joke referencing an event on a single website. eaolson 21:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to PZ Myers Guettarda 21:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * After further reflection, it could stand alone, and doesn't really fit all that well as a subset of the Myers article, so changing to Keep. Guettarda 12:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it It's a valuable piece of information about a common topic. Hank Fox 20:14, 3 September 2006
 * This incorrectly signed vote by 72.224.41.177 00:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to PZ Myers (provisional). But before that is done other problems will need fixing.  It needs to be trimmed down.  The stuff on Jim Pinkoski's POV might belong in his article instead. Some POV problems need fixing. The claim that Pinkoski is a "noted authority on biblical interpretation" should be justified or deleted. Citations would also be nice. If some of these are not addressed then my suggestion changes to delete.  And in response to Hank Fox, I don't think it is all that common at all. MichaelSH 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to PZ Myers, if possible, otherwise Delete. --Kristjan Wager 10:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge to Jim Pinkoski, since he made the argument. Link from PZ Myers. Moioci 14:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That which is interesting about the argument, however, isn't the argument itself -- there are plenty of equally bizarre fallacies in his guide, none of which anyone is proposing as it's own article. The noteworthy thing about this one is that it has become a generalized tagline to label nonsensical rhetoric. I don't see that getting explained properly in Pinkoski's article. In fact, this may be one of the best reasons to keep this article where it is without merging it -- neutral ground, free of the inherent POV that would come with merging it to either place. Sanguinity 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please cite some sources of its use as a "generalised tagline" that are notable--ZayZayEM 05:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice, please, that my vote was and remains to merge with PZ Myers. As far as I'm aware, the tagline is notable only within the circle of Pharyngula's readers, and not far beyond that. Sanguinity 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly can be merged? Unencyclopedic content does not belong in any article. This article is completely unencyclopedic. PZ Myers already has as much about this as is needed.--ZayZayEM 02:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Already has as much as is needed? I haven't compared the Myers rev-history to the date of your comment, but what's over there right now is... nothing. Except the link to this article.
 * As to your question about what, in my opinion, should be there.... I'd throw out the statement about "criticising at length Jim Pinkoski's comic books". It was only for a relatively short period that he was having a go at Pinkoski's books, and unless you were Pinkoski, about the only thing that ultimately mattered from that go-around is the persistence of "PYGMIES + DWARFS". I'd replace the Pinkoski-sentence with a statement that: One of Myers' creationist criticisms, the satirical use of "PYGMIES + DWARFS", has become a memetic tagline used by other science and political bloggers to highlight perceived logical fallacies of (insert NPOV wording here indicating that this is typically used by the political left when talking about the political right). Cite the original post, perhaps Pinkoski's comic, and however many additional citations that wolud be needed to demonstrate that it's been used 1.) by other people, 2.) to criticize science arguments, and 3.) to criticize political arguments. Sanguinity 21:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Myers did criticize Pinkoski at length. He tore apart him in several posts back in Sept 05. After the original post he set about totally ridiculing the poor bastard. Then recently he reposted the lot on the new server, with an explainer post. While it mentions that his motivation was people querying about P+G, it still fails to establish greater notabilty outside of a select insular group/club (see WP:SKOOL). Its also never referred to as an argument. Actually more appropriately, the term "PYGMIES + DWARF" logic is used. The setting behind the movement needs to be explained, or its really useless to the average reader.--ZayZayEM 01:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge, reading up on this topic (Evolution-creation debates) just now, I didn't understand this phrase then it was used. Therefore, even though this is a very short article, I'd argue that the information is useful to the encyclopedia in that it highlights a part, if small, of a very important/common debate which people might not understand. Article does need some work, though. Barnas 11:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has extensive information already on the alleged (my POV) Creation-evolution controversy--ZayZayEM 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ or www.pandasthumb.org/ or www.talkorigins.org
 * Cleanup and Merge  Rich Farmbrough, 12:13 5 September 2006 (GMT).
 * Having done some research, it's really not worth being part of anything, but it is worth a very mini-artciel in case someone looks it up. Rich Farmbrough, 12:33 5 September 2006 (GMT).
 * That's not exactly WP:WEB or WP:TRIVIA; I have stat-counting software on my website, people look up all sorts of weird crap, I don't think that's a reasonable case for notability.--ZayZayEM 13:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge (preferable) with PZ Meyers this has become a common phrase on Evolution/intelligent design boards by science supporters to tag nonsensical arguments. Goatan 11:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * User:ZayZayEM has asked for some examples, Try looking at

It is definitely most popular on Pharyngula but appears in message boards on all three I have also seen it on others that are less well frequented by me.

Here are a few to start you of with from pandas thumb

"But how does this explain PYGMIES & DWARFS? ;)" http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/latest_fossil_f.html#comment-96276

"I haven’t read the full thing yet. I’m hoping it explains pygmies and dwarves." http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/finally_someone.html#comment-90893

Pandas thumb readers are certainly used to it. “That calls for another round of “how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??” …http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/super-mutant_ki.html#comment-39593 www.pandasthumb.org/


 * Delete. I echo the judgement of Ealson- it just isn't notable. If an explanation is necessary within the ID page, it should be made there.  Gabrielthursday 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge with PZ Myers. It's notable. FeloniousMonk 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to PZ Myers I'm not convinced of its notability by itself but some of this makes sense to go in that article. JoshuaZ 15:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to PZ Myers, and ditto what Josh said. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just merge it with PZ Myers, btw is it PeeZed or PeeZee? &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or Delete per MichaelSH and Kristjan Wager. Armon 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say Keep. It's notable as a meme, probably because it's a funny way of ridiculing a nonsensical argument, especially if a defense of creationism is the target. Merging it anywhere would reduce the quality and probably lead to bias that isn't wanted here. --Switch 04:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "because its funny" is not grounds for notability, meme or otherwise. --ZayZayEM 06:01, 13 September 2006 (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.