Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation Science Association

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. Claims of notability uncontested since addition of new sources. El_C 18:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Science Association

Previously nominated for speedy deletion as spam/due to insufficient notability. Listed for cleanup since December 2005. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 11:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep, for now. It's not spam, though the second link may be superfluous. Further information as to (un)notabilty would be helpful. Emeraude 12:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable, no references. - Cyborg Ninja 14:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent non-trivial sources. Blueboy 96 14:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - restructuring, rewriting, may as well just delete. Onnaghar (Talk) 14:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Tim Vickers 15:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. /Blaxthos 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These people may be a bunch of loonies, but they certainly exist and have influence. Google provides over 12,000 hits, mostly to CSA organisations in Canada, Australia and the US, which, of course, we would not accept as reliable sources. But, if you want independent evidence of notability, how about references in The Boston Globe 1 May 2005 [1], Washington Post 12 August 1999 [2], MSNBC 8 Nov 2005 [3] and, most importantly, New Scientist 22 April 2000 [4] (subscription needed for full access, but republished at [5]). I'm sure there are others, but I've had enough of following creationist trails. Emeraude 18:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable from resources provided by Emeraude above. - 76.110.238.95 23:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now sourced. DGG (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as currently sourced. I'm from the midwest and have actually heard of this group as well... Not that that means a whole lot but I would say its notable. --Entoaggie09 20:33, 29 July 2007 (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.