Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity


 * 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, please defer merge-related discussion to article talk. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Minor campaign by the Discovery Instuitute, just over a thousand ghits, does not appear to have been picked up by any major news source. Also, is the debunking original research? There's so little on the PR stunt online... Adam Cuerden talk 05:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge back to D.I. JJL 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems notable enough. Guettarda 03:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Notable how? has anyne talked about this but them? Besides maybe a brief comment on Orwellian naming practices? Adam Cuerden talk 10:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Intelligent design movement. This could be whittled down to a paragraph. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Although the DI has not yet heavily promoted this organization (probably because the list of signatories is not yet long enough), links to it now occupy a prominent position on Discovery Institute web pages. The latter part of this article is NOT original research, but just a quoting of appropriate references quantifying the membership of the fields invited to sign this petition. Without knowing the size of the fields involved, there is no way to judge what this survey means, and this article would verge towards a POV advertisement for the Discovery Institute. In fact, the earliest versions of this article were copied directly from the Discovery Institute website and read exactly like an advertisement. --Filll 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, or (distant second choice) Intelligent design movement. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It's notable and it's better to cover it neutrally and accurately on Wikipedia in it's own article (that appears as the 3rd result in Google) than letting the DI continue to misrepresent what it is to the public. IOW, this article stands as an accessible and neutral counterpoint to the DI's PR. Odd nature 16:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe that any publicity stunt done by a major publicity stunt company, such as Discovery Institute, is automatically notable even if it's slow to be taken up by the media, as soon as there are enough sources to be able to neutrally represent the stunt. Digwuren 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Not enough for a standalone article. Clarityfiend 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It is notable, but I would be favorable to Merge per KC. Orangemarlin 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Worthy of it's own article per Odd nature. FeloniousMonk 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Notable. But the numbers of people signing that statement should be related to the number of physicians who know about the statement and declined to sign it, not to the total number of physicians. Any data on how widely this statement is circulated among those professionals?Northfox 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, just as with the other 10 or 15 similar petitions that have been circulated on both sides of this issue, there is no way to determine this. This statement is no different than Project Steve or A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism or any of the others in this respect.--Filll 04:32, 2 June 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.