Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True.Origin Archive (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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True.Origin Archive

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure, anonymously-edited creationist (and thus WP:FRINGE) website. Disputed A7 & G4 WP:SPEEDY candidate. No articulation of notability (beyond an absurd article talk claim that a creationist reply to TalkOrigins Archive is inherently notable). Recreated from a redirect, by a since-indef-blocked user, only months after original article was AfDed & deleted, cited almost solely to topic-website. No WP:RS coverage to speak of (beyond a few bare citations, and occasional mention in TOA, but that website catalogs all creationist claims no matter how obscure). Coverage even in the more prominent creationist literature is thin (a bare citation in The politically incorrect guide to Darwinism and intelligent design was all I could find). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: a few citations have been added to rebuttals of True.Origin Archive articles in WP:SPSs. Even if they pass WP:SELFPUB #2 (which I consider doubtful), I do not see how they can add to notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's 6:30AM here and I haven't slept in several hours. I hope people can give me circa 18 hours to reply before piling on the deletes so I can convince people of a keep, or failing that a merge. (For clarity, I'm not the guy who recreated this.) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have thought about that before you demanded a second AfD for this already-AfD-deleted WP:SELFPUB-sourced article. (And it should be obvious that you're not the recreator -- as if you were you'd be indef-blocked and unable to comment here.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stay civil please. It's the second time I'm asking you this. WP:CHILL. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly tell me what is "civil" about demanding an AfD when none was needed, and then immediately asking that the AfD be put on hold? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. What has changed since the last AfD? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a clear G4. The version that was recreated by User:AshforkAZ in October is an exact copy of the deleted article. The current version adds a couple paragraphs but nothing that's reliably sourced. That aside, the site fails WP:WEB.
(1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Aside from Talk.Origins, there are no reliable sources cited in the article. A search of Talk.Origins turns up one article that could possibly fit criterion 1 - A Reply to "Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission" by Mike Dunford, and even that is a fairly weak source. Even if this is an acceptable source (a fact that some would certainly dispute), it's not a sufficient source. You couldn't write an encyclopaedic article about the website only using Dunford's article. And apart from that, I can find no other reliable sources. So it fails the bit about multiple reviews.
(2) The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. I can find no evidence that it has.
(3) The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Again, I can find no evidence of this.
The article fails WP:WEB and is a textbook CSD G4. I really don't understand why this is even at AFD. Guettarda (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2010 (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.