Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Speech on Evolution

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. Merge, if desired, can be discussed on the relvant talk page, and carried out, if consensus forms, without an afd. DES ^(talk) 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Speech on Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

unnotable Martialis 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one reference, which indicates only that the article is ridiculous. Martialis 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell hasn't this been deleted yet? There are now 2 more references, one is a science blog, and the other is a comment buried in a different science blog. (an unsigned comment from User:Martialis)

Because that's not how AFD works. There's no consensus for deletion. FeloniousMonk 21:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - db-spam, and so marked. In any case, WP:SOAPBOX applies here. The Evil Spartan 16:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete semi-scientific propaganda; disguised by multiple references to publications by a single institute with a clear mission. WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. Arnoutf 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since when is neutrally and accurately describing a group's PR campaign proscribed? Better to accurately and neutrally cover it here than let them get away with claiming it is something it is not elsewhere. And if sources are missing, then add some.Odd nature 19:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Arnoutf (but not speediable IMO, I removed that tag...there are refs and it seems possibly notable on its face). I agree with Odd nature that a NPOV description of this thing is certainly encyclopediac, but the article here needs more WP:RS than just self-published sources to in order to be more than just an extension of the PR campaign itself. The one non-self-source doesn't appear to mention the campaign directly, so its inclusion borders on WP:OR by synthesis. DMacks 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - the article's references are all from what WP:ATT defines as partisan & self-published souces. These sources are not reliable or notable. I would respectfully disagree with Odd nature, Wikipedia does not cover the PR campaigns of organizations unless those campaigns are notable in & of themselves (i.e mentioned in secondary sources)--Cailil ^talk 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional sources have since been added. Also, according to W:V and WP:RS, which are actual policy unlike WP:ATT, the sources you object to as partisan are being used exactly as policy dictates, as primary sources for what the partisan group (the Discovery Institute) says. Odd nature 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three I just read are all a single quote of a Discovery Institute person stating that he feels that what Bush said is in keeping with their PR campaign. Actually no, they are just using the topic-title, not even explicit that this is related to the actual PR campaign. They are three cites of exactly the same quote in the same context, all with no further commentary on the quote or the campaign. That doesn't sounds like third-party support for notability of the campaign. DMacks 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote to merge (see below)--Cailil ^talk 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article describes an attempt by the Discovery Institute to place religious dogma into public school curriculum. It's the same as Intelligent Design, Teach the controversy, the Wedge document and numerous other articles on the same topic. Orangemarlin 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per OrangeMarlin; this is a notable DI campaign, and the article is supported by multiple independent sources. Guettarda 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per OM and Guettarda. •Jim62sch• 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely Strong Keep I cannot imagine why on earth this article is not worthy of keeping. Basically the Discovery Institute has made itself prominent in the public sphere by its lobbying and public relations efforts. And all of its related activities are clearly of encyclopedic importance, including the campaign that is the subject of this article. I am certain that more material will be available to add to this article to flesh it out.--Filll 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Is this about a specific name campaign, or the general idea of "free speech on evolution," ? If the second, ID and related articles cover the ground very thoroughly. So it would have to be a specific campaign. Given that the discovery Institute is notable, not everything it does is. There is no reason to think a particular campaign notable unless it ha independently been the subject of notice.

Ref #1 is about ID, not this campaign in particular; so is #2, which uses the term in the generic sense only. #3 talks about many things, of which evolution under any wording is a minor part, #4 is generic "who don't believe in free speech on evolution," he explains." --that is not talking about any specific campaign. #5 is about ID in general and even says so. #6 doesn't even mention the phrase. #7 uses the title for the campaign, without in any way showing how it might differ from any of its other initiatives. In any case, it's an internal PR from the Institute and not an independent source. #8 doesn't mention the phrase. #9 doesn't mention the phrase. #10 is the 2nd part of #7, and in any case not independent. #11, again from the institute, doesn't mention the phrase. #12, also from the institute, uses the phrase .

so who considers this campaign a significant separate initiative-- First, even the institute itself doesn't seem to do so consistently. Second, there is no reference from a supporter of the Institute's position that uses the phrase--not even Bush. Third, there is no reference from an opponent of the position that uses the phrase.

I think that settles it--not a POV fork, exactly, but an attempt to use something not notable without a single independent reference to the phrase as a specific title of anything, to provide another place to discuss the controversy over the institute and ID. It's about as notable as calling it "Intelligent Design, argument continued into 2007" DGG 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the Discovery Institute itself calls it a campaign: "Join The Free Speech on Evolution Campaign" Does anyone actually bother to read the sources provided there? FeloniousMonk 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Good article on a notable branch of the Discovery Institute's well-documented PR campaign to foist ID off as science. I don't see any genuine issues with the sources provided; some of the most strentuous objections here appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the guidelines for the proper use of primary sources. FeloniousMonk 01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read through them all, and , somewhat to my surprise, found that though they call it that twice, nobody else does. Nobody at all. Not their supporters, not their opponents. And they don't even do it consistently--see the other refs. There are zero independent refs to their use of the word. We will be the first. WP is not in the business of spreading the PR that nobody in the world has noticed.DGG 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Sure about that?"I'm on the Discovery Institute's enemies list now. They have this thing called "the free speech on evolution campaign"..." PZ Myers at Pharyngula (blog). "Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells instead presented a "compromise", talking about having teachers "teach the controversy". One may dredge the DI web site for any of sundry press releases and commentaries where they espouse other catchphrases as well. On their "evolutionnews" weblog, one can easily find the DI "free speech on evolution" campaign page." Wesley R. Elsberry at The Panda's Thumb (blog). These are sources from the leading ID critics made at some of the leading venues where ID is debated. And before everyone jumps on the fact that these are blogs, both Pharyngula and The Panda's Thumb have been both widely accepted as reliable sources at Wikipedia for several years now. Pharyngula because it is a credible member of ScienceBlogs, a project of Seed magazine, and Panda's Thumb because of the respect it has garned within the scientific community and the high percentage of participation of that same community there. FeloniousMonk 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete: Awful article, might be some content to merge to [[Discovery Institute; The campaign is... somewhat noteworthy, but made out as more notable than it is. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per FeloniousMonk. --Ian Pitchford 07:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't really see a NPoV reason not to keep it now that more sources have been added (though I can understand Martialis' view when the AfD was opened). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as per Odd nature and Orangemarlin. However, I would suggest considering merging into this article; it's not (yet?) obvious to me that this particular campaign is notable enough for its own article, but it certainly would fit into a larger, more general article on the Discovery Institute's disinformation campaigns. As an aside, this article was nominated for deletion only four days after its creation. Given this timescale, in future it might be more sensible to first encourage its creator/main editors to add sources for notability before nominating it for deletion on these grounds. The campaign the article describes stems from a notable organisation after all. --Plumbago 08:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. OK sourcing, not especially notable yet as a term. It does appear to be a strategy, though. Jokestress 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I've changed my position following the additional sources and the comments of FeloniousMonk. I still have serious concerns about the articles sourcing since if we accept FeloniousMonk's argument there are, perhaps, 2 reliable sources. However I think Adam Cuerden's suggestion to merge this article with Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns is very reasonable. The subject of this article is not particularly notable and can't be sourced well enough to justify having its own page, especially when a summary article about this organization's other campaigns already exists--Cailil ^talk 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While not a major campaign, it's sufficiently notable both on its own and as a link-to in the WP series on Intelligent design. I don't know of any other uses for "Free Speech on Evolution" other than this usage in the context of the Discovery Institute's campaign to argue that the "freedom of speech" clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution trumps the establishment clause of the First Amendment in the view of advocates of teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in the US public schools. So I wouldn't go by the Google standard of notability in this case--It's more notable than, say, Hickam's dictum. ... Kenosis 20:50, 30 May 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.