Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (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   keep. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Adding rationale, per DRV: Both sides generally made arguments they felt were policy-based, and on the raw count the !votes were 10 delete, 16 keep, and 1 "keep and merge". Summarizing them, the "deletes" felt that the sources were not nearly in-depth or detailed enough regarding the site to establish notability, while the "keeps" felt that mentions in reliable sources (perhaps combined with a large number of ghits) were sufficient to establish notability. The sourcing looked a little thin to me as well, but this is obviously, at least to some extent, a matter of opinion, and people of good will can disagree on these matters. Those arguing to keep were generally well-established editors, many with tens of thousands of edits (or in one case over 120,000 edits) to their credit - not WP:SPA accounts with little familiarity with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, and interest in only one article. I felt that I had to respect the consensus of that preponderance of editors, and their considered judgment in the matter. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No reliable sources to establish notability. Only self-published and other unreliable sources. No mainstream or widely-known sources. Seregain (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. In spite of the large number of "Keep" opinions in the 2005 discussion, this seems to meet none of the criteria at Notability (web). A single author has written two books devoted to criticising the website, with extremely limited library holdings . Other than that, Google News Archive and Google Books find only trivial mentions of the website, saying no more than what it's about. EALacey (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - The books in question are self-published by the author as well. Incidentally, the person who wrote those books got himself banned from Wikipedia a while ago for an unbelievable amount of sockpuppeting. Seregain (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum to my above note: as can be seen here and here, the two books are authored by Jason Gastrich and published by Jesus Christ Saves Ministries. JCSM is an "organization" of one: Jason Gastrich. As to Gastrich's status on Wikipedia, see User:Jason_Gastrich and Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jason_Gastrich. Seregain (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't feel the need to revise my suggestion based on the sources that have been added, each of which constitutes "[t]rivial coverage, such as ... a brief summary of the nature of the content". These sources have not allowed the Wikipedia article to include any new information about the site's "achievements, impact or historical significance", but have only been appended to statements that "describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers", statements which were obvious from the site itself. (All these quotations from Notability (web).) EALacey (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete keep. Widely quoted in forums, widely criticized as irrelevant (therefore mentioned) on Christian apologetics sites (such as this one) but, according to Google, not getting enough in terms of scholarly attention to pass WP:WEB. References inserted are satisfactory, although the one in German would only qualify as trivial. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * COI disclosure: I've been familiar with this website long before I joined Wikipedia. (I used to make sport of those who would throw arguments from the SAB, as it is called in many forums, at me.) --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm prepared to WP:IAR on this, technically it just about fails WP:WEB perhaps, but it's fairly widely quoted in blogs and on usenet and there are books written about it to try to counter it (even if they are self-published books.) However, the fact that the multi-million selling The rough guide to the internet covers it confers notability, since this suggests that they consider it a key part of the internet.- Wolfkeeper  02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - Not much of a mention in that book it seems: The rough guide to the Internet. A tiny little blurb in a book that describes Jack Chick's website as "Hard-core Christian porn." Really? Seregain (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, they didn't have to mention it. It's a widely read book, and it's included.- Wolfkeeper  18:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - Based on Seregain (an evangelical Christian)'s contributions, I doubt that this AFD was made in good faith and is likely an attempt to censor views that he finds offensive (and his posts in this AFD further enhance my opinion).

For the record, his 1st edit on Wikipedia was an AFD for Secular Student Alliance, and immediately after starting the AFD, he removed a reference to the SSA from Ken Ham using a deceptive edit summary. These are just a few of his disruptive edits, mind you. I have a thread on WP:AN/I that I would be happy to share. Thanks.--SuaveArt (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update - Mentioned on The Examiner.--SuaveArt (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you at least provide a link to that reference? That would help. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 14:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That source is on WP's blacklist. The Examiner is little better than someone's personal blog and there is no editorial oversight of the material they publish. See here, here, here and here. Seregain (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Examiner has been approved in specific articles on the Spam Whitelist page, and Seregain's statement is once again incorrect. The article from the Examiner simply establishes the site's notability further (content from the site would not likely be cited from the source). On another note, many sources which Seregain has a problem with here are more valid than those in Flywheel (film) and Sarah's Choice (evangelical films) which he insisted were legitimite during those article's AFDs, so his POV continues to shine.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please add the sources mentioned above to the article, at present it has no sources. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I found some sources and added them. There is also a section about it in Absolute Beginner's Guide to the Bible but Google Books only shows the headline. It starts with The Skeptic's Annotated Bible www.skepticsannotatedbible.com Every anachronism, contradiction, or otherwise difficult statement in the Bible can be found on ... --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Addded a source from a non-profit Skeptic organization last night. Still waiting for the Examiner source to be approved on Spam Whitelist as a general notability source. ;) --SuaveArt (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep thanks in no small part to references added GTD 16:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep based upon the same reasons as the four keeps above. --Mark PEA (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Still fails WP:WEB: C2 and 3 are right out, so far as I can tell, so all that we have left is C1 - "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". The closest thing the article currently has is the  opinion piece in El Nuevo Diario, and it's a weak reference at best - it's not even clear if the column ever appeared in print. (Here's the translation for those who'd care to take a look.)  The German language page only references the site in a bio on its creator, and provides little information other than the fact that it exists; it's no more useful for determining notability than a google hit.  And being featured in "The Rough Guide to the Internet" is not enough to confer notability under WP:WEB, because it's a trivial mention; we need reliable sources of which the site is 'the subject', not places where it's briefly referenced.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per added sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per added sourcing. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. The solution to an article on a notable topic lacking sourcing is to add the sourcing, not nom for deletion. Glad to see that Apoc has done so; kudos and gratitude to him. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, adequate sources now added to support what we already know, which is that this site is quite prominent in the war between fundamentalist Christian apologists and others. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just so we're clear, the 'adequate sourcing' that's referenced in keep comments above includes two entries in internet guides ("Biblical studies on the internet: a resource guide" and "The Rough Guide to the Internet"), a one-line reference in a bio blurb for the site's owner, and a single opinion column? This is probably the most support I've ever seen for a web site with such bare-bones sourcing.  Are there more sources that I'm not aware of that better establish the subject's notability?  If this guide were so important and highly regarded, surely it would have attracted more interest from reliable sources?  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree we could use more, but the rough guide is a pretty significant indicator of notability. We already know from the lengths to which some previous people have gone that apologists view this site as uniquely inimical. The nomination was in bad faith, that is not really in doubt. It's also discussed in Tom Head's Absolute beginner's guide to the bible ad is cited in Cyber Worship in Multifaith Perspectives and a fair number of other limited interest books such as the anti creationism handbook. I look back at the various memes we've struggled to decide how to handle, this has a lot more traction in genuinely thoughtful discussions (and of course genuinely spiteful polemic) than most of them. I am never going to buy this book, for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who knows me, but I do think it is a significant piece of the debate. I'd be interested to know how significant people think this is: - it looks weighty to me. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That source, as a Wikipedia mirror, is not at all significant. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for not assuming good faith. Maybe instead of attempting to smear me, you should be searching for more sources. Please address the question below as well. Seregain (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend not to assume good faith of POV-warriors who are obviously not declaring previous accounts. Call it a quirk. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I and everyone else tend to not assume good faith for editors who continue to make baseless accusations with extremely weak "evidence" for no good reason. Seregain (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very strong evidence has been provided on AN/I about your POV-pushing and deception. The fact that you tried to hide the comments about this on your talk page is just further proof that you're editing solely in bad-faith with an evangelical agenda.--SuaveArt (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that the attention that particular individual has paid the site is a good example of why we should use only reliable sources to determine notability. There are much more reputable people (should I say much less disreputable people?) who espouse similar views, and none of them seem to have seen fit to respond to the site - or, at least, their response has not yet been documented in the article.  I disagree with the Rough Guide and other internet guidebooks as an indicator of notability based on the wording of WP:WEB, which, while not a policy, is a good description of how inclusion is decided in practice. So far we have only one source (the opinion piece) that is primarily about the content itself, and it's a rather weak one.  Whatever the source, I (obviously) think the nomination itself has merit.  I think it's clear that the nominator has a strong POV, and may not be a new editor, but I don't think it follows that the nomination was made in bad faith.  Incidentally, I think I'm just misreading your 'buy this book' comment, but are you saying the site's content has been or is going to be published in some form?  I don't see any indication of that in the article, but if it has, that's of course very relevant.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Query: Are these two sources (the internet "guides") used anywhere else on Wikipedia to establish a website's notability, or just for this particular one? Seregain (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I got my Google-fu on and found out myself. There's only about four other articles that use the "Rough Guide" as a source and ZERO others that use "Biblical studies on the internet." If these are such great and reliable sources, shouldn't they be used a little more? Seregain (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure about this one. Don't rely solely on the internet search automatically provided above, just "skeptics annotated bible" or "skeptic's annotated bible" seems to turn up a few more (even ignoring the stupid Webster's ones), but still pretty paltry.  link:skepticsannotatedbible.com/ might indicate some notability, if going through the results there are any RS that link to it, but it seems to be mostly blogs that do.  I don't know if that search includes sites with links to subpages? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources not great, but adequate. PhGustaf (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks sources and does not show notability. Until this article has more reliable sources I cannot vote to keep.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can you explain what type of sourcing the article would require in order to meet your standard of notability? I'm not sure that comment was made in good faith, since the article clearly does not "lack sources".--SuaveArt (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is over the line, SuaveArt. Coldplay Expert's rationale is perfectly valid - 'lacks sources' does not mean 'has no sources' but 'does not have enough sources.'   As the article does not have sufficient sourcing to pass WP:WEB, that makes perfect sense.  With all these accusations of bad faith, I'm having trouble at this point believing that you are acting in good faith.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 14:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

*Delete – Per comments above. No evidence of notability. Hellbus (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because of newly added sources. and merge to Biblical criticism which seems to be a good home for this. Allegations that !voting to "keep" are based on WP:ILIKEIT don't hold water for me: I'd not visited the website until now. But a cursory check to the article showed sources added and 600,000 + g hits so it has some notabilty, in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Noting the complete lack of any mainstream sources, it amazes me that so many people are supporting keeping this article. Seregain (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – I looked through the sources, and none of them establish notablity. They're not reliable sources, and the few that are reliable (such as from Google Books) are only a swift and passing mention. Not even close to meeting the WP:GNG.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 04:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Article actually establishes notability and meets WP:GNG extremely well, and includes many reliable and independent sources. I know that you and Hellbus are Eagle Scouts and evangelical Christians (as is Seregain), but please don't let your religious WP:POV compromise your neutrality on this AFD, as we are not censored and do not delete articles simply because they offend right-wing evangelicals. I also noted that the votes for the (now deleted) Tracy Goode article were flooded by evangelical spammers (not sure if Seregain or these other two were involved in it, but just recently Seregain mentioned the Tracy Goode AFD on his page, and linked this AFD complaining that it will be kept), so I'm seriously questioning the good faith of these users (Seregain in particular, as this isn't his 1st dubious AFD either). Please just keep this in mind.--SuaveArt (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It has now been learned that Seregain and American Eagle (and possibly other evangelical voters) have attempted to stack this AFD with 'delete' votes. This was also done recently during an AFD on Tracy Goode (which was flooded by evangelical spammers), so I ask that administrators keep this in mind. I have notified administrators of this disruption and will leave it at that.

In addition, this comment by American Eagle conflicts with his vote above (ex. "Tracy Goode should've been kept, and the skeptic Bible shouldn't be."). This furthers my suspicions about bad faith POV and the involvement in the vote flooding in the AFD for Tracy Goode.--SuaveArt (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * SuaveArt, it's very clear that you yourself have a strong POV where it comes to 'Evangelical Christans', so perhaps you should tone down the accusations of bad faith? Weren't you and Seregain told to steer clear of each other anyway?  Now, I see no evidence of vote stacking in this afd - the comment you linked to was about a completely different one, and I beleive one that both parties were already aware of - so I am going to respectfully request that you provide better evidence or strike your accusation.  I think we're at odds in our interpretation of the notability criteria - I'm not satisfied that one brief pinion column qualifies as 'multiple non-trivial reliable sources' - but either way, the mudslinging has to stop.  Make your case with policy, not by trying to discredit those who disagree with you.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't believe I missed this - American Eagle's comment on this AFD was at 04:43 and Seregain's comment on AE's talk page was at 04:47. I admit I should have thought to check the timestamps before commenting on the merit of the canvasing accusation, but there's really no excuse for failing to check them before making said accusation. -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per the comments above it regrettably seems that this nomination was not made in good faith, regardless the sources do establish the notability of the Web site in question as a Web site Ajbpearce (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I reversed a self-defined "bold" NAC that ignored the Delete !votes while claiming that notability was confirmed. It was not confirmed, by any stretch. The sourcing of the article is atrocious and Google News searches bring up nothing that would enable this to meet WP:WEB standards. I would ask that the closing admin please review the sources in the article carefully. Warrah (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In your dreams. You're just wasting everyone's time. This is a web resource that has seen adequate coverage in a reliable source print media in a popular book, and the reliable source indicates that is an important website; thus this is never going to be deleted here. For this review, it's a question of whether the sources constitute notability and the general consensus above is certainly that they do, therefore this is a keep.- Wolfkeeper  05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So does that mean any and every website mentioned in that book meets WP's stringent notability bar? And incidentally, from my understanding, AfD's are not decided on "consensus" (aka the number of votes). Seregain (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On simple questions about things like whether something is notable or not, yes, it really does rely on consensus.- Wolfkeeper  13:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - "9th ed" for the "Rough Guide." I see on Amazon that the book is up to at least the 14th edition. Wouldn't that make the 9th edition outdated? Seregain (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. My library has the 13th edition (2007), so I'll try to see if the site was still included in that. (Notability (web) excludes directory entries and brief summaries anyway, but some editors clearly consider this source important.) EALacey (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, the 13th edition contains an identical entry for the site, with the same eight-word description. EALacey (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - If the site is non-notable why does it appear in the appendixes of the 'Absolute Beginner's Guide to the Bible' as noted by Apoc2400 above ? I assume it's there by intelligent design.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned before, guidebooks like that one are not used to determine notability. It's a trivial reference, and thus does not contribute to the site's notability per WP:WEB. -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * STRONG AND SPEEDY KEEP This is rediculous. I closed this quite awhile ago, and another non admin opened it. I dont have a problem with a healthy debate, don't get me wrong here, but when it comes to someone trying to make a Point someone needs to draw the line. Sources have been established, citations have been made, references added, but those who wish to destroy the article don't like them. I would like to closing admin to also take a look at the attempted deletion history of the individuals who have asked for prior articles to be deleted. We are an encyclopedia, articles should be KEPT, NOT DELETED. Whomever wrote WP:DELETE and added something along the lines of "why don't you try to FIX an article instead?" was a fucking genius.  D u s t i SPEAK!! 10:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This was closed on 24 January, one day before the discussion was supposed to run its seven-day course - for that reason alone, the reversal of the NAC was justified. Furthermore, this is not a question of WP:IDONTLIKE but a question of WP:RS and WP:WEB. It is impossible to fix articles when appropriate references are lacking. Warrah (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not trying to make a point and I did try to find sources. As evidenced by the sources - such as they are - subsequently added by others, it's painfully obvious to anyone without some bias in favor of this website that there aren't any strong sources to support this article's inclusion on Wikipedia. People are obviously supporting "Keep" because and only because they like the website. I could care less one way or the other about whether there's an article about it or not. What I do care about is the obscene level of support in the face of the extreme lack of widely known RS. Any other article with sources as weak as this one has would've been deleted without this level of debate, conflict and hostility. In fact, articles with better sourcing actually have been deleted. Seregain (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed my !vote to Keep even though I think that website is a complete waste of bandwidth. It meets WP:GNG, and I was actually surprised that I couldn't find any sources about it myself. So much for WP:ILIKEIT. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see no substantial, non-trivial independent coverage of this website in the sources quoted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whilst it may have been mentioned by other sources, these are not in depth coverage. Most of the pertinent information is sourced to the site itself. If that was taken away there would barely be anything left. Quantpole (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet the general notability guideline by any stretch of the imagination: of the current refs, 1 is the site itself, 2 is a self-published website and has not been established as a reliable source, 3 only mentions the site in passing, 4 is a copy of the Wikipedia article, 5 is an opinion piece and thus not a reliable source, 6 is again the site itself, 7 is not significant coverage as noted above, and 8 is a four-line mention that is again not significant coverage. Ucucha 14:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per added sourcing.  --Kbdank71 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article does not seem to be notable in and of itself; it reads in a sort of self promotional way. Perhaps if there was not a complete lack of criticism of the SAB it wouldn't sound so POV and promotional. It might be notable enough to be a part of a larger article on the same basic subject, such as having a section in the Criticism of the Bible article, or if the keepers are intent on it having its own article then it might have to be userified for a time to gain better resources which focus more on the SAB directly instead of just briefly mentioning it. Invmog (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep reference and quoted in several podcasts on iTunes most downloaded list, significant exposure. - M  ask?  00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds of adequate sourcing for the purpose. NPOV and balance problems can be best dealt with by editing, not deletion.    DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 26 January 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.