Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Answers in Creation

Article for Deletion Discussion
The AfD tag has been added, as suggested by another editor, because this article does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines:

1. This article appears to be a conflict of interest violation. Various interests appear to have written it into other articles, it may, perhaps, be using Wikipedia to push an agenda, which the encyclopedia is not for, to publicly challenge to the targets (http://www.answersincreation.org/, groups like AIG, ICR, etc.) despite being an unknown; past versions of this subject appear to betray such a bent; all this is done using self-published sources by the group itself, which does not meet notability or reliable source guidelines (below) (WP:CONFLICT). 2. This article uses self-published sources, in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.(WP:RELIABLE) 3. This subject of the article does not meet the requirements for notability. (WP:Notability) a. It is not mentioned outside of itself, or its own members and interests: it is not found in papers, magazines, conferences, etc. b. It references only the subject's own self-published sources. (WP:RELIABLE) c. It appears to be absent from mention in other publications,  etc. (WP:Notability), (WP:Proposed Deletion). d. Other on Wikipedians mention that it appears to be non-notable (this page has one, for instance). e. Notability requirement "[P]age in a nutshell": "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." - This page does not satisfy this requirement: thus it does not merit inclusion for a stand-alone article. Thus, this may not pass the criteria meriting inclusion as its own subject. (WP:Proposed Deletion).

Regarding that it does not meet the source criteria or guidelines of Wikipedia, surveying its references, for example:

The following are the AiC references:

http://www.answersincreation.org/about_aic.htm http://www.answersincreation.org/March06Newsletter.htm http://www.answersincreation.org/faq.htm http://www.answersincreation.org/astronomy.htm http://www.answersincreation.org/stratigraphy.htm http://www.answersincreation.org/evolution_articles.htm http://www.answersincreation.org/death.htm  Which are #s1-5, and #7 & 8. <BR /><BR /> The other one, reference #6: <BR /> http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/09/billy-graham-on-evolution.html <BR /> </BLOCKQUOTE>

None of these qualify under reliable source guidelines: an article certainly cannot be built on only these.

Suggestion: This subject could be "merged" in the sense of "mentioned" in Theistic Evolution, or in, but regarding the guidelines, it may not meet the notability guidelines, and "mention" does not mean changing the emphasis of those articles to try to represent this subject as fully as if it were a stand-alone article as this; it is precisely that, however, (meeting the requirements for having its own article), that this subject does not meet. With current sources, however, this subject does not meet notability or reliable source criteria even for inclusion in those places, and so I would advise to first ask the primary editors of those articles to survey the subject, and if inclusion by mention is permissible, out of respect.

Making redirects to either of those subjects from this one would be more than suitable as a course of action. I ask that those who discuss things here do so on the basis of the Wikipedia guidelines, not emotions.

[The above is a re-edit of my former comments on this talk page; the previous edits are visible on this discussion page's history page.] tooMuchData 04:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)