Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A. Dembski


 * 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   speedy keep.  So Why  12:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

William A. Dembski

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Deletion or major edit justified by gross and consistant violation of WP:VALID: vital component is good research; balance; impartial tone; characterizing opinions of other people's work. Deletion or major edit also justified by gross and consistant violation of WP:MNA and WP:RNPOV. With one hundred and twenty-one sources cited, over seventy and five percent are biased and in prejudice against William A. Dembski and/or his beliefs, preconcieved beliefs, and work. Hrafn "note[s]" that "this article does in fact" not give equal validity to "minority views such as pseudoscience"; how ever true and with WP:VALID on the issue of equal validity to sources, then balance must also be in existance (refuted by the ratio of for and against William A. Dembski sources cited), then impartial tone must be given to the "pseudoscience", then characterizing opinions of William A. Dembski can not attack his character. Also, by inciting a debate between creationists and evolutionists as part of an encyclopedia article--one that is heavily unbalanced by the evolutionist perspective, validated only in the factuality given to that perspective and not in its frequency or in the tone given to the creationist stance,--especially one article not concerning evolutionism, is hardly appropriate. This article is a biographical article that has become one in violation of WP:MNA and WP:RNPOV and WP:VALID. The article is well sourced. The article, how ever, also takes sources and dedicates a whole section, larger than the early life of the subjectItalic text, to document supposed net squabbles between malicious critics and the administrators of William A. Dembski's personal "blog". This article does not follow any coherent structure and has been mentioned as "piecemeal" on the talk page. Much of the talk page, either citing bias or debating quotes, is dominated by biased sources and opinion--all of which has so leaked through this article. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Article is well-sourced, neutral and stable. Also, none of the issues listed by nominator is a reason for deletion. -- Sander Säde 11:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. No reasons given for deletion of this largely notable public figure article, very well sourced. all problems identified by nominator can be dealt with standard editing -see WP:ATD. -- Cycl o pia talk  11:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: nomination does not cite a legitimate reason for deletion. Wealth of coverage demonstrating topic is notable. Whilst WP:NPOV is generally not a valid reason for deletion, I would note that this article does in fact comply with WP:VALID as it does not "'give equal validity' to minority views such as pseudoscience". Likewise no indication (let alone a coherently argued claim) that it violates WP:MNA and WP:RNPOV. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The reasons given are not reasons for deletion, and all really belong in the talk page for ongoing work on the quality of the article. The WP:VALID guideline that is cited by the proposer is actually a clarification that neutrality does not require giving equal balance to both sides. The article as it stands does meet neutrality as understood on wikipedia. The idea that the article violates WP:MNA (Make Necessary Assumptions) is just weird; but in any case it is not a reason for deletion. The article does meet WP:RNPOV (Religious Neutral Point of View) just fine, but in any case it is not a reason for deletion. There is no case given here for deletion. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  12:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well sourced article on an unfortunately notable man.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:08, 10 November 2009 (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.