Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:43, 24 January 2010

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

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

No reliable sources to establish notability. Only self-published and other unreliable sources. Seregain (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In spite of the large number of "Keep" opinions in the 2005 discussion, this seems to meet none of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (web). A single author has written two books devoted to criticising the website, with extremely limited library holdings (OCLC 55846448, 57003612). Other than that, Google News Archive and Google Books find only trivial mentions of the website, saying no more than what it's about. EALacey (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The books in question are self-published by the author as well. Incidentally, the person who wrote those books got himself banned from Wikipedia a while ago for an unbelievable amount of sockpuppeting. Seregain (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to my above note: as can be seen here and here, the two books are authored by Jason Gastrich and published by Jesus Christ Saves Ministries. JCSM is an "organization" of one: Jason Gastrich. As to Gastrich's status on Wikipedia, see User:Jason_Gastrich and Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jason_Gastrich. Seregain (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't feel the need to revise my suggestion based on the sources that have been added, each of which constitutes "[t]rivial coverage, such as ... a brief summary of the nature of the content". These sources have not allowed the Wikipedia article to include any new information about the site's "achievements, impact or historical significance", but have only been appended to statements that "describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers", statements which were obvious from the site itself. (All these quotations from Wikipedia:Notability (web).) EALacey (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~keep. Widely quoted in forums, widely criticized as irrelevant (therefore mentioned) on Christian apologetics sites (such as this one) but, according to Google, ~~not getting enough in terms of scholarly attention to pass WP:WEB.~~ References inserted are satisfactory, although the one in German would only qualify as trivial. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI disclosure: I've been familiar with this website long before I joined Wikipedia. (I used to make sport of those who would throw arguments from the SAB, as it is called in many forums, at me.) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm prepared to WP:IAR on this, technically it just about fails WP:WEB perhaps, but it's fairly widely quoted in blogs and on usenet and there are books written about it to try to counter it (even if they are self-published books.) However, the fact that the multi-million selling The rough guide to the internet covers it confers notability, since this suggests that they consider it a key part of the internet.- Wolfkeeper 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Not much of a mention in that book it seems: The rough guide to the Internet. A tiny little blurb in a book that describes Jack Chick's website as "Hard-core Christian porn." Really? Seregain (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, they didn't have to mention it. It's a widely read book, and it's included.- Wolfkeeper 18:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Based on Seregain (an evangelical Christian)'s contributions, I doubt that this AFD was made in good faith and is likely an attempt to censor views that he finds offensive (and his posts in this AFD further enhance my opinion).

For the record, his 1st edit on Wikipedia was an AFD for Secular Student Alliance, and immediately after starting the AFD, he removed a reference to the SSA from Ken Ham using a deceptive edit summary. These are just a few of his disruptive edits, mind you. I have a thread on WP:AN/I that I would be happy to share. Thanks.--SuaveArt (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Mentioned on The Examiner.--SuaveArt (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least provide a link to that reference? That would help. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That source is on WP's blacklist. The Examiner is little better than someone's personal blog and there is no editorial oversight of the material they publish. See here, here, here and here. Seregain (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Examiner has been approved in specific articles on the Spam Whitelist page, and Seregain's statement is once again incorrect. The article from the Examiner simply establishes the site's notability further (content from the site would not likely be cited from the source). On another note, many sources which Seregain has a problem with here are more valid than those in Flywheel (film) and Sarah's Choice (evangelical films) which he insisted were legitimite during those article's AFDs, so his POV continues to shine.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the sources mentioned above to the article, at present it has no sources. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some sources and added them. There is also a section about it in Absolute Beginner's Guide to the Bible but Google Books only shows the headline. It starts with The Skeptic's Annotated Bible www.skepticsannotatedbible.com Every anachronism, contradiction, or otherwise difficult statement in the Bible can be found on ... --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addded a source from a non-profit Skeptic organization last night. Still waiting for the Examiner source to be approved on Spam Whitelist as a general notability source. ;) --SuaveArt (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks in no small part to references added GTD 16:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon the same reasons as the four keeps above. --Mark PEA (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still fails WP:WEB: C2 and 3 are right out, so far as I can tell, so all that we have left is C1 - "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". The closest thing the article currently has is the opinion piece in El Nuevo Diario, and it's a weak reference at best - it's not even clear if the column ever appeared in print. (Here's the translation for those who'd care to take a look.) The German language page only references the site in a bio on its creator, and provides little information other than the fact that it exists; it's no more useful for determining notability than a google hit. And being featured in "The Rough Guide to the Internet" is not enough to confer notability under WP:WEB, because it's a trivial mention; we need reliable sources of which the site is 'the subject', not places where it's briefly referenced. -- Vary | (Talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sourcing. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. The solution to an article on a notable topic lacking sourcing is to add the sourcing, not nom for deletion. Glad to see that Apoc has done so; kudos and gratitude to him. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adequate sources now added to support what we already know, which is that this site is quite prominent in the war between fundamentalist Christian apologists and others. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just so we're clear, the 'adequate sourcing' that's referenced in keep comments above includes two entries in internet guides ("Biblical studies on the internet: a resource guide" and "The Rough Guide to the Internet"), a one-line reference in a bio blurb for the site's owner, and a single opinion column? This is probably the most support I've ever seen for a web site with such bare-bones sourcing. Are there more sources that I'm not aware of that better establish the subject's notability? If this guide were so important and highly regarded, surely it would have attracted more interest from reliable sources? -- Vary | (Talk) 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we could use more, but the rough guide is a pretty significant indicator of notability. We already know from the lengths to which some previous people have gone that apologists view this site as uniquely inimical. The nomination was in bad faith, that is not really in doubt. It's also discussed in Tom Head's Absolute beginner's guide to the bible ad is cited in Cyber Worship in Multifaith Perspectives and a fair number of other limited interest books such as the anti creationism handbook. I look back at the various memes we've struggled to decide how to handle, this has a lot more traction in genuinely thoughtful discussions (and of course genuinely spiteful polemic) than most of them. I am never going to buy this book, for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who knows me, but I do think it is a significant piece of the debate. I'd be interested to know how significant people think this is: [1] - it looks weighty to me. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not assuming good faith. Maybe instead of attempting to smear me, you should be searching for more sources. Please address the question below as well. Seregain (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to assume good faith of POV-warriors who are obviously not declaring previous accounts. Call it a quirk. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I and everyone else tend to not assume good faith for editors who continue to make baseless accusations with extremely weak "evidence" for no good reason. Seregain (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong evidence has been provided on AN/I about your POV-pushing and deception. The fact that you tried to hide the comments about this on your talk page is just further proof that you're editing solely in bad-faith with an evangelical agenda.--SuaveArt (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the attention that particular individual has paid the site is a good example of why we should use only reliable sources to determine notability. There are much more reputable people (should I say much less disreputable people?) who espouse similar views, and none of them seem to have seen fit to respond to the site - or, at least, their response has not yet been documented in the article. I disagree with the Rough Guide and other internet guidebooks as an indicator of notability based on the wording of WP:WEB, which, while not a policy, is a good description of how inclusion is decided in practice. So far we have only one source (the opinion piece) that is primarily about the content itself, and it's a rather weak one.
Whatever the source, I (obviously) think the nomination itself has merit. I think it's clear that the nominator has a strong POV, and may not be a new editor, but I don't think it follows that the nomination was made in bad faith. Incidentally, I think I'm just misreading your 'buy this book' comment, but are you saying the site's content has been or is going to be published in some form? I don't see any indication of that in the article, but if it has, that's of course very relevant. -- Vary | (Talk) 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Are these two sources (the internet "guides") used anywhere else on Wikipedia to establish a website's notability, or just for this particular one? Seregain (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got my Google-fu on and found out myself. There's only about four other articles that use the "Rough Guide" as a source and ZERO others that use "Biblical studies on the internet." If these are such great and reliable sources, shouldn't they be used a little more? Seregain (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure about this one. Don't rely solely on the internet search automatically provided above, just "skeptics annotated bible" or "skeptic's annotated bible" seems to turn up a few more (even ignoring the stupid Webster's ones), but still pretty paltry. link:skepticsannotatedbible.com/ might indicate some notability, if going through the results there are any RS that link to it, but it seems to be mostly blogs that do. I don't know if that search includes sites with links to subpages? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources not great, but adequate. PhGustaf (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources and does not show notability. Until this article has more reliable sources I cannot vote to keep.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you explain what type of sourcing the article would require in order to meet your standard of notability? I'm not sure that comment was made in good faith, since the article clearly does not "lack sources".--SuaveArt (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of newly added sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Noting the complete lack of any mainstream sources, it amazes me that so many people are supporting keeping this article. Seregain (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I looked through the sources, and none of them establish notablity. They're not reliable sources, and the few that are reliable (such as from Google Books) are only a swift and passing mention. Not even close to meeting the WP:GNG. American Eagle (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 *'''Keep''' because of newly added sources. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' - Noting the complete lack of any mainstream sources, it amazes me that so many people are supporting keeping this article. [[User:Seregain|Seregain]] ([[User talk:Seregain|talk]]) 04:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' &ndash; I looked through the sources, and none of them establish notablity. They're not reliable sources, and the few that are reliable (such as from [[Google Books]]) are only a swift and passing mention. Not even close to meeting the [[WP:GNG]]. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">American Eagle</font>]]''' ([[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]) 04:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)