Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Brown (creationist)

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. John254 00:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Brown (creationist)

Some editors are concerned about the "long term" notability of subject. They assert that short term bursts of press coverage does not establish long term notability. Ra2007 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I don't buy this idea that "long term" this person will be less notable. How could we possibly judge this in an objective way? The whole idea reeks of crystal ballism (yes, I know that's not the intended use of the policy, but its spirit certainly applies here). If we adopt the notion that at some point in the future a currently notable subject might somehow become non-notable, then we might as well delete every article on Wikipedia since this is true for all of them. I see no other reasonable grounds for deleting this article. Gwernol 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Notability is not Temporary - If something was once notable - it is always and forever notable. Notability seems to have been established in this case by the inclusion of significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject. - Fosnez (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We did not try very hard to establish notability. I found a lot of material in just a few minutes.--Filll (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should we speedy close? Ra2007 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After an hour? I have no opinion, but most of the sources in the article are extremely far from reliable. I would very much like to see some proper references. bikeable (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then help me find more. I think that creationist references for a creationist are not too bad. And also we have some from talk origins which is reliable. And we have some from NCSE which is reliable. And Christian Broadcasting Network. It is getting there. But help me find more.--Filll (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that Speedy Keep (and a resulting speedy close) nominations, on the basis of citations that were almost all added within three hours of the start of the AfD (including a number made since it started) are, to say the least, premature. A number of them are patently unreliable or both include mention, and substantiate points, that are too insubstantial to warrant mention in an article. The remainder (almost exclusively) from the 'trenches' of the evolution/creation conflict, from whence it very easy to find mention of even such laughably featherweight creationists as Casey Luskin and Salvador Cordova. It is possible that the new citations will add up to notability, but it is not as yet clear. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Grudging keep this creationist is not even mentioned in Ronald Numbers' authoritative and comprehensive The Creationists (which gives a few pages of coverage each to numerous creationists too obscure to have warranted a wikipedia article), raising considerable doubt as to his notability. The substantiation of his notability that has been offered on his article to date amounts to a couple of unreliable creationist/dominionist sources and an unsubstantiated claim that, 14 years ago, his hydroplate hypothesis got a 5 minutes mention in a two hour special on Noah's Ark. I don't think mention by either CBN or NCSE estalbish his notability as (1) CBN isn't particularly reliable, and Christian news outlets frequently cite obscure creationist sources (e.g. this recent article's mention of the obscure Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation); (2) although reliable, the NCSE has a strong focus on the Evolution/Creationism issue, so could be expected to, at times, take issue with the claims of even obscure creationists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC
- Comment: I see that a wave of citations have been added to the article since I last looked at it. However, I note that a number of them are of doubtful (and in the case of Babu G.Ranganathan, a notorious crank, laughably poor) reliability. I have yet to see one that is not likewise covered by my caveat to NCSE above, but will need to look into this more carefully. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This "wave" seems to include an incredible amount of cruft -- e.g. the fact that Brown managed to get himself onto a couple of website links lists (one of them of a creationist organisation) found its way into the article's lead. This is hardly "significant coverage", and is perhaps indicative of a hurried attempt to establish Brown's notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well he is almost as notable as Kent Hovind I would say, at least without the jail sentence.--Filll (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree -- Hovind is much more colourful than Brown, so got a lot more mainstream media coverage, even before his legal difficulties. In any case, it is not about what either of us would "say" it is about what we can verify. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. But a half dozen or more mentions in the NCSE journal, plus being appointed to a government committee, plus in a few Christian publications and some skeptic publications, plus being in some controversies and attacked by fellow creationists, all make for good material. He is notable.--Filll (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But how much of the above could you also put together for an obvious featherweight like Casey Luskin? The "government committee" was in fact a state board of education appointed review-committee, where each member of the board was allowed to pick a single member -- of very marginal notability therefore. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I must admit to finding it absurd that Brown's hermit-like unwillingness to engage with either evolution supporters or even other creationists, which is probably one of the primary reasons for his obscurity, is being used (often via quite fleeting and unsubstantive mentions of it and thus him) to bolster the number of citations to make him look notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: notability is not temporary, but I suspect much of the coverage of Brown is. As I have said, much of it is from the trenches of the evo-creo conflict, where it is today's battles that are of concern, not the historical record. Much of it therefore is likely to be replaced with content on tommorrow's battles. However wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so I will leave that issue for tomorrow, and grudgingly ascribe Brown a marginal measure of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vindication! Goo2you (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No ~~you pathetic and vainglorious little ...."soul"~~, this is in no way "vindication" of your repeated([1][2][3]) removal of a legitimate notability template, and insertion of unreliable sources -- disruptive editing that necessitated this (as it turns out, otherwise unnecessary) AfD. It was not until Filll (and to a lesser extent Ra2007) added considerable reliable citations that this template should legitimately been removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise to the wikipedia community for the above personal attack, and retract it. That the editor in question saw fit to crow over me both here and on my talk page that the consensus on this AfD was in some way vindication of his prior disruptive and ineffectual defence of the article's notability made me more than a little irate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep According to google news there are many newspapers that mention him. See this search. Specific examples (which might make sense to add to the article) [4], [5] [6] (unfortunately require subscriptions). All of those three seem to be reliable sources talking about Brown's involvement with school boards trying to get them to teach creationism. They come from newspaper accounts and don't seem to have any serious reliability issues. And there are other examples as well. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice CBS News even quotes him. This guy is obscure, but not THAT obscure.--Filll (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, obviously and self-evidentially notable to almost all. Goo2you (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources used are tenuous and not the greatest, but there are so many mentions of him that I'd say he passes WP:N. WLU (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Why is this article up for deletion? I am guessing it is because most can't "creation bash" like they want to. I remember first coming across this article and it touted the usual talk origin half-truths. I remember it used to be just an intellectual argument against creationism. Now I can see the emotional side as well. If you are going to remove this article because it has no reliable sources, I totally agree. This did not seem to be the case. It seems to get special negative attention because of who it is. I request that the person who requested deletion roam just a little of the wiki-world and find other articles to delete. I am guessing they won't, because they don't touch a personal nerve. If this article gets deleted, it makes conservapedia look more unbiased. If this happens, I will no longer trust Wikipedia. It will be a place for the intellectual progressive to toute their political views. Nothing more.RyanDaniel (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.