Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit 2


 * 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. Prodego talk  23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit (2nd Nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

See first nomination.

Redirect to The God Delusion. POV fork deleted and redirected 4 months ago. One tenacious editor determined to challenge this. Sophia 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename Needs to reflect the broader remit that is now being discussed. This article should redirect to the new one that has been so well worked by Merzul et al. as this will allow for true balance and an exploration of the sources for this convincing argument. Sophia  17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this means that the AfD nomination is withdrawn? I agree that the name chosen by Dawkins is slightly unfortunate, but no other reasonable name used by notable commentators has been suggested. I've started a section on the talk page about it and if we can find a name that is used by at least 4 notable commentators and has at least 300 ghits then we can rename the article later - I would not oppose a consensus to rename if it emerges from the talk pages after this AfD (though I would contribute to the debate). But let's close this AfD, with thanks to all contriubtors, and get on with improving the article and others. NBeale 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Well, no - the AfD discussion is not finished. Please do not make all our minds up for us! The original proposer may have changed her mind, and the article has changed substantially during the course of the debate, but there is still a discussion taking place, and we need to agree whether to (a) leave it where it is; or (b) delete it; or (c) turn it back into a redirect to The God Delusion; or (d) make it a redirect to somewhere else; or (e) keep it but rename it. I think those are the choices. Snalwibma 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There is already an article on the Existence of God Sophia  00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sophia and Snalwimba are now were editing the article to make it worse to support their deletion arguments(!) to remove half the refed material. Please bear this in mind, and check that you are looking at a version from a proponent of the article with the 8 notable commentators (see below), before you vote. NBeale 22:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (amended by NBeale 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)and then by NBeale 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC))
 * NBeale - please retract that accusation. It is rubbish. It is untrue. Discussion on the content of the article is taking place on the talk page, and I have justified everything I have done - which is designed to improve the article, not to make it more likely to be deleted. Snalwibma 23:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * NBeale - even with your changes to the text of your comment, it is still an unfounded personal attack. It is not worthy of you to impugn the motives of fellow-editors in this way. Again, I invite you to retract your comment completely. Snalwibma 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an unfounded personal attack and I invite anyone interested to review the points we have raised on the talk page and judge for themselves whether they are valid or not. Sophia  23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8 Notable Commentators The article is not about Dawkins's phrase but about the philosophical argument that he is trying to make, which is discussed by at least 8 notable commentators: (1) Richard Dawkins; (2)Alister McGrath (3)Alvin Plantinga (4)H. Allen Orr (5) Daniel Dennett, (6) William F. Vallicella (7) Michael Shermer in Science, (8) Lawrence M. Krauss in Nature. S & S & another Editor who wants to delete have have been editing down the article to remove more than half this sourced material.NBeale 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC). Now instead Merzul is adding material about a slightly different but related argument made by Dawkins in the same chapter, but I can see no strong reason for not including it as well although technically it's not the "747 Gambit". NBeale 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I cannot see that "POV fork" is a valid reason for deletion in WP:Deletion policy. The only reference in this policy that I can find that is relevant is  here which suggests that it is not a valid reason for deletion. Please explain if/why I am mistaken, if not you might want to consider changing your vote (PS I am the author as noted below) NBeale 22:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the article can't be written without undue weight problems. This analogy used by Dawkins is reported in a couple of sentences and the the rest of the article (several paragraphs and the real point of the article) is used to criticize it. A classic POV fork. Sophia  22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the article has 4 sections, 3 expound the argument and the 4th has 3 critics and 1 supporter 2 supporters, so it's pretty much 50:50; and Dawkins thinks it's an argument not an analogy. But "POV Fork" seems not to be a valid reason for deletion according to WP:Deletion policy, indeed it seems that it may be  specifically not a reason. NBeale 07:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Nice misrepresentation of the article. One section (tiny) is the lead, the second section (tiny) is the background, the third section is an OR synopsis of Dawkins argument taken from a critic of the theory. The biggest section by far is the criticism section. Hardly 50:50. The article as it now stands is just a tag line to hang Alister McGrath's new book on. As for the deletion policy - your link does not address POV forks. What it does do is highlight my concerns - is this article capable of an NPOV stance with good authorship and I still say no. It has become a vehicle to reduce The God Delusion to criticism of one particular phrase via an eclectic mix of OR and apologetics and I see no hope that focusing on this one phrase will produce anything else.  Sophia  19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well said, Sophia. This whole article stinks. It's a million miles from an honest attempt at an NPOV encyclopedia article. The whole enterprise is built on spotting an opportunity to indulge in some dishonest Dawkins-bashing. Snalwibma 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well in word count it's 37:63 but NPOV does not mean exactly the same number of words for and against: it means reporting fairly and NPOV what notable commentators have said. Other editors can judge for themselves whether "stinks" and "dishonest" are good arguments for deletion or personal attacks. According to policy "XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process, and the article will usually be speedy kept." NBeale 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment One important point you neatly gloss over is WP:Undue weight. That is the issue here and your figures confirm the problem - 63% of the article is devoted to criticism according to the numbers you have given (ie 26% more attacking the theory than explaining it). Wikilawyer your way out of that one NBeale. This is NOT a content dispute and I resent your attempts to slur honest editors. Sophia  22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is not a protest strategy in a content debate, the problem is that this article can't be presented neutrally. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV. We might not be right in these concerns, but since this argument has not been mentioned anywhere other than in book reviews of The God Delusion, it is a genuine concern that this should be treated in the main article. Claiming that Sophia is abusing the AfD process is therefore an unfounded personal attack. Please recall that when you, NBeale, were concerned with neutrality here, we didn't accuse you of trying to suppress information, so let's continue this debate assuming good faith... on both sides of course. After all, many philosophers argue that God is watching this... --Merzul 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the POV fork policy. Seems perfectly clear from reading this that this article is not a POV fork. The balance of the article fairly reflects published sources: if you can find futher notable published sources that support the argument please add them (disputes about 63:27 balance seem to be disputes about content to me). But I don't think further responses from me here are helpful. Let's allow other Editors to decide. NBeale 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As you are the major proponent for this article your answers to the WP:Undue weight questions would be most helpful to others trying to follow this discussion. Sophia  06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Sophia. Well final comment: I certainly intend that this article should "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" and I believe that it does so. But if you can find verifiable sources that I have missed, please add to them to the article and improve it. This is not a reason for deleting it. 09:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect per nom - and as per decision last November. Snalwibma 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Snalwibma is now editing the article to take out refs to make it appear more one-sided. I don't think it is proper for people who are trying to get an article deleted to edit it to make it worse in the hope that this will boster their case. NBeale 14:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please retract that accusation. See talk. Snalwibma 23:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is a substantial reworking of the original article providing thoroughly reliable and verifiable sources addressing the Ultimate Boeing 747 argument as an integral argument separate and apart from the book. The result of the previous AfD is irrelevant and the vote here is meaningless without referencing the article as it exists. This is an unfortunate but ancient tactic of voting to get rid of an article while simultaneously butchering it. Alansohn 14:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The orginal article was arguably premature in that at the time the only notable reference to this argument was in The God Delusion. However since then we have seen four notable commentators address this argument. This new article is carefully refed  and quite different from the old one.  Although 3 of the commentators criticise the argument and  only one defends it, this is an accurate reflection of the critical debate and the article itself takes no POV on which commentators are right.  If course the article can be improved but it is way above the notability threshold IMHO.  And there is too much material to incorporate into The God Delusion article which is already a bit long. FWIW I am the original author of the article, but the need for it was identifed by another Editor who put in a WikiLink from The God Delusion 13 days before I created the article. NBeale 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but edit the article to place it better in context. This is an article which, in one form or another, has been around for quite some time, and it's well worth having an article on the subject.  Even as is, it contains enough info and is notable enough to justify its own article - this is probably Dawkins' favourite argument, in TGD and elsewhere, and also something that has been responded to by a number of other people. TJ 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but the current title is very restrictive and TGD specific. Dawkins has an essay from 1998 entitled "The Improbability of God", and some title along such lines would be more appropriate if we want an article on the underlying argument. The only advantage of this current title is that we have a nice image of an aeroplane with a caption highly suitable for an uncyclopedia. --Merzul 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Rename Either redirect to The God Delusion that already contains the relevant criticism by Plantinga and Orr, or what I would now prefer rename this so we can give a proper treatment of the "improbability of God" or "scientific arguments against the existence of God", see the talk page. Dawkins' argument is not notable enough on its own, neither is Dawkins a philosopher, so we can't expect to extract a logical outline of the argument from a popular text like The God Delusion without some serious original research, and I don't think it is NPOV to use an outline proposed by a critic. In any case, given the current sources, the only article we can write here is "Criticism of the Ultimate 747 Gambit". --Merzul 23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Change vote to Rename - I like the "improbability of God" suggestion, it would enable one to look at the argument itself - which is significant - in its broader historical context, would be a good way of arranging material, and would be very helpful. Am trying to work out how to strikethrough my previous vote.  Thanks, Merzul. TJ 00:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering it, now another thing that requires consideration would be the actual title. "Improbability of God" is maybe slightly POV. That's certainly the title of Dawkins' essay and Michael Martin's book, but perhaps we can think of a more neutral title... And Sophia, note that the existence of God and most arguments we cover with individual articles aren't quite like this. The argument from poor design is highly related, but seems more of an "impossibility of God" type argument. --Merzul 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Argument against the existence of God currently redirects to Existence of God so I think there is some sorting out to do before we create yet another article on the same theme. Sophia  19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

*Keep as this sets a new standard for other articles for the improbability-of-ultimate-being (of which this allusion is just one of that class). Previously it was hard to have such recently invented neologisms get traction in Wikipedia even when other "notable" people had referenced the neologism. So I'm happy that this sticks. Ttiotsw 10:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a standalone argument based on the book.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a rather specific argument used in the book and addressed in reliable and verifiable sources. The argument exists separately from the book. Alansohn 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you really think we would benefit from having articles on each argument mentioned here, or are you being sarcastic? This question is itself not intended to be sarcastic or clever in any way, I'm actually confused here. --Merzul 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, in essence what the Stenger link has in it is almost a full list of articles for this set of improbability hypothesis examples. We do not really have each of these very well documented as nicely as the current '747 article in Wikipedia (POV aside). That the '747 article today appeals to some people need not mean that tomorrow the article will have the same appeal. So it may end up more ironic than sarcastic if you consider what could be planned for the future using '747 as the catalyst for change ends up not being congruent to the essence of my reply. Ttiotsw 14:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The God Delusion as per nom - after a nights sleep I feel my previous keep really would be for WP:POINT in the end and that this one aspect of the book needs to stay in the book article until more people create stand-alone books or articles e.g. "The '747 Delusion" or similar. Ttiotsw 02:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep we need some Dawkins-cruft to one day outnumber the pokemon articles. I is ironic that an anti-God book should be treated in this way.  David Spart 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; It's a curious argument that reminds me a little of Bayesian probability. Probably should be in Category:Arguments against the existence of God. &mdash; RJH (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I learned something useful from this article and that's my guideline for the usefulness of an article. Nardman1 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. The work itself, God Delusion, is WP:N, I don't know that one aspect of the book is.  -- Pastordavid 23:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. It is just one aspect of The God Delusion, and the fact that various commentators use it as a means of attacking Dawkins's ideas does not mean it merits an article. Gnusmas 07:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A useful summary that is handy to have as a separate article from The God Delusion.Gillyweed 08:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to The God Delusion or Existence of God. This article is a POV fork. I am also a bit disturbed by the accusations and talk page messages made by . (Some examples:  .) Vassyana 09:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. --teb728 19:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems good as a separate article; considerable length. Notable and referenced. If there's a POV issue, fix it. Everyking 07:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not want clog up this AfD debate with further cruft, but please see here for a summary of why I think this article should be a redirect to The God Delusion. Snalwibma 08:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article stands on its own merits. YankeeGal 19:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article has a good collection of citations discussing this argument in the book. It is too long to merge into the article about the book, which is already pretty long. WP is not paper, so we certainly have room for this level of detail. --Itub 10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Too long for merge, is notable and referenced, so cannot delete. Some NPOV arguments above have tended to argue quantity to suggest anti-Dawkins bias. Here, if allowed to remain, the quality of the arguments seems to be speaking for itself! Perhaps a rename, as Merzul and TJ. --Old Moonraker 14:11, 19 March 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.