Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin's Angel

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Sandstein 07:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's Angel

Darwin's Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable book, just published. Article presumably created in order to provide a platform for soap-boxing about Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion, and already turning into a battle-ground after less than 24 hours. This is a very recent small book which does not need a Wikipedia article, and we certainly don't need another platform for an argument over the rights and wrongs of Dawkins' view of religion. Snalwibma 16:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It easily meets the criteria at WP:BK: the article gives links to reviews in major national newspapers, and it seems to be notable enough that Dawkins has written a response to it. So subject meets notability criteria, and the fact that the article may be poorly written or the focus of edit-warring is no grounds for deletion. Thomjakobsen 16:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - note that the reviews in national newspapers are not so much reviews of the book as opinion pieces by journalists, using the book as a pretext to say nasty things of their own about Dawkins. In each case, Cornwell's book is not the subject of the review but a jumping-off point for anti-Dawkins propaganda. And I fear that the function of this wikipedia article is the same. It's not really an article about a book, but a platform to make yet more swipes at Dawkins, initiated by an editor with a long track record of doing just that! Snalwibma 17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They've been filed under "Non-fiction reviews" by three of the UK's most respected broadsheets. Whether you agree with the contents of those reviews is irrelevant; WP:BK doesn't talk of "reviews in major publications that you like and agree with." The fact that it's been the subject of a response and BBC radio discussion by Dawkins himself - within four days of its hardback publication - would be enough to establish notability, even without the reviews. If the article's bad, do something to fix it. Deletion isn't fixing it. Thomjakobsen 01:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you seem to completely misunderstand what I was trying to say. My argument is that those three reviews do not meet the criteria of WP:BK, because they are not in fact reviews of the book but anti-Dawkins soapboxing prompted by the book. I'd make exactly the same argument if the book had been used as an excuse for pro-Dawkins journalism. It's about content, and an argument from authority based on the fact that the newspapers are highly respected is irrelevant. Those three newspaper articles are about Dawkins, not about Cornwell's book. This wikipedia article is the same. It is, in essence, a POV fork set up by an editor who seeks out every opportunity to attack Dawkins. Snalwibma 07:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not an argument from authority: I'm pointing out that the articles appear in reliable sources according to WP:RS, and the fact that they are "triggered" by Cornwell's book - less favourably, "soapboxing prompted by the book" - brings them well above trivial mentions or re-hashed press releases. Add to that Dawkins' own response, and his BBC radio appearance to debate its author, and the notability of the book in its own right seems more than established. If the article has problems - which I suspect is the driving motive behind this AfD - concentrate your efforts on sorting them out, rather than trying to persuade us of the book's non-notability. Or better still, just wait a couple of weeks - the more people read it, the more likely the article is to attract a group of editors who will presumably iron out its existing problems. Thomjakobsen 13:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Surprisingly well received in a rather notable literary/acedemic milieu. [1] Is likely to get more press. Probably could be trimmed/cleaned up. --Evb-wiki 17:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with Enforced ReWrite - the book itself unquestionably meets WP:BOOK. Unfortunately, the undue weight and WP:BATTLE/WP:SOAP in this article are quite staggering. In it's current form it seems to be little more than a line-by-line refutation of The God Delusion. Thus, somebody needs to take a big bold axe to about 3/4ths of the article and let the rest stay. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 17:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sure this article will improve as there are more reviews - it's an important and interesting book. I heard about it on the BBC Today Programme, bought it and created the stub article. NBeale 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to vote delete because this seems like yet another God Delusion parasite, but I don't know how to make a Wikipedia argument to back this up... The WP:BK guideline seems satisfied, as this book does have things that are published as reviews in national newspapers. --Merzul 18:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable book and the article will evolve a NPOV over time. Deleting something because you don't like its message is not what wikipedia should be about. Nick mallory 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since it seems rather unlikely that "Delete" will become the consensus any time soon, let's hope you are right in thinking a neutral POV will evolve, because it sure is bad now. Summary of article: what every chapter says (arguments not covered which makes it look even more biased),positive reviews called just reviews Dawkins quoted at too little length (when, basically, if he's right, Cornwell is a quote-mining liar like a creationist), end of. It may well get better. Let's hope. The book is a repeat-the-refuted-to-death arguments piece of propaganda to too much of an extent as it is - the article needs to be different. In fact, if we were going to put a complaint template on, "like an advertisement" might just have worked were it not for Dawkins getting a minuscule window. If I find any critical reviews, I'll be editing myself. As for whether it should be deleted, it hardly seems possible to get anything deleted nowadays - everyone's got so much experience of stuff getting fixed. Let's hope also no administrator comes along any time soon to shut this down; we're not ready!85.92.173.186 09:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If articles were deleted simply because they didn't have a NPOV at some point in their evolution then there'd be about nine articles on Wikipedia in total, if that. You've obviously got a dog in this fight too. Nick mallory 10:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA Maybe if I'd disagreed with your "keep" position I could understand your reaction, but you're being really unfair. The fact that I mentioned why the book should not make someone get off the fence does not mean I think its conclusions are wrong. All I'm saying is, I hope your prediction is right, because the article needs a lot of shaping up. I thought highlighting what in the article was bad enough for you to have needed to say why it's a problem but not one deserving of deletion would prevent you from directing a "don't delete" argument at me, because I'm not calling for deletion. Obviously, it didn't. I'm going to assume good faith by supposing you didn't see my intention, so we can leave it there, then get back to another comment on the actual topic of whether or not this article should be deleted. The only reason I said we weren't ready for an administrator is that we need longer for enough editors to become aware of this discussion - however much consensus there is behind keep - to maximise the probability that the article will soon be improved. Nick, thank you for helping to keep is all in perspective about when deletion should be used. :)85.92.173.186 17:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack sunshine, I'm merely pointing out that you're saying the article should be deleted because it's been written by someone with a point of view on it, I'm merely pointing out that you also have a point of view on it, just a different one. Your complaint is not that it's a biased article, but that its view doesn't correspond to yours and even if it is biased that's no reason for deletion. The front page of the Afd says that a lot of wikipedia articles start life in bad shape and it's up to editors to improve and source them and that should be tried before deletion, that's the case here. If you want to rewrite it, then rewrite it. In terms of the argument I'd support Dawkins 100% but that's not the point here. It's a book that has been widely reviewed and provoked a lot of discussion, therefore it's notable. What ends up on its page is a product of editors with different points of view fighting it out. If this article had been written by someone criticising the book I doubt you'd be arguing for its deletion. Nick mallory 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still obviously not making my self very clear. I wouldn't call for its deletion if it had the opposite slant because, if you read what I'm saying, I'm not calling for its deletion, full stop. That's why I didn't put the word delete in bold. As for what my own personal opinion on it is, I didn't offer one. I said the book is fallacious in its arguments - that's a fact about things like affirming the consequent, ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc etc. If I said the conclusions were wrong, that would be an opinion - people can have serious disagreement about that. In any case, I only brought that up to say: the article is currently in a bad shape in what happen to be similar ways so, while I respect the "not everything biased should be deleted" point (in fact I'm not sure I even know when I would support the deletion of an article after my experience of these discussions), I see your "it'll be all right" prediction as one that needs to come true, whether or not it will. 85.92.173.186 07:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only question here is whether or not the book is notable. It clearly is notable by wikipedia standards because of its reviews and the commentary it's generated. I personally think the books arguments are nonsense and that the current article on it here is rubbish but they're not the points at issue. Good articles emerge through the wikipedia gestalt, we're just deciding whether it should be strangled at birth. By wikipedia standards it shouldn't be. Nick mallory 13:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know why you're adding that as a response to something I said. I'm not calling it too non-notable for an article. I'm not saying soapboxing is a reason for deletion (although the admin DGG thinks that). Well, I think everyone's views are clear enough now, but perhaps I'm wrong yet again. 85.92.173.186 15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to author page pending a critical analysis of the book being published. Compare the quality of the Hitler's Pope article. We're not questioning notability of the author but three rent-a-reviews do not make for critical analysis and do not define the reliability of the subject. A Thief in the Night was published around 2001 - it's still redlinked, and The Pontiff in Winter published in 2002 and it too is redlinked. Superficially the reviews of Cornwell's work seem sporadic and thus Darwin's Angel promotion here ahead of earlier works feels of recentism. Ttiotsw 21:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be three 'rent a reviews' in the Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian - the three big British serious daily broadsheet newspapers would it? You're arguing that this book shouldn't be included in wikipedia because it's too recent and, at the same time, saying his older books aren't notable because they don't have an article in wikipedia yet? So damned if you do and damned if you don't eh? Nick mallory 00:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appeal to authority and the majority and misrepresent what I have said: merge with the author article not delete the content. The notability of the newspaper publisher does not add magic pixie dust to every word published. We must look at the reviewers in isolation to the publication. To me I feel that they have used the Darwin's Angel simply as a soapbox. I feel they are both partisan and unreliable. Ttiotsw 01:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I may make one important point, they're not so much rent-a-reviews as rent-a-mentions in longer anti-Dawkins pieces where this book is a springboard or brief topic. 85.92.173.186 07:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So far, it seems that the consensus is that this book will be notable enough for an article at least in the long term, although maybe merging it with Cornell would make sense - I'm still mulling that over. Consensus also seems to be that it becoming more neutral is likely. Well, I'm no visionary. Let's see if you're right. As soon as I can find material from which to cite stuff so I don't break WP:OR in an edit, I'll try to improve it myself. Of course, all talk of a consensus after two days may be premature, although I must admit I can't see it changing direction. The merge idea is intriguing. I'll comment again if I have any thoughts on it. 85.92.173.186 07:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should it matter whether this is notable or not? The book pleases those that like or sympathise with religion, or dislike Richard Dawkins' militant atheism, and has the opposite effect on those who approve of his views. If people have the right to Wikipedia Dawkins and his books, why can't they allow this one to go up. Perhaps the site could be developed a little more so that Dawkins isn't left with a section that would appear to be criticising him, however there is nothing written that wasn't said by him and it should be allowed to stay. If people are upset about this, don't look at it and grow up- there are plenty of things we hear in this world that we don't want to, it doesnt mean we censor it- including Richard Dawkins aspertions' about Religion and what he calls 'religionists' (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.99 (talk)

Well, notability is a factor on Wikipedia, yes - it says so in some rules. Part of this discussion is in working out whether it is notable. it looks like the consensus is that it is. I think the concern that led to this discussion being started was that it might not be ready for an article, just as the article Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) was very quickly put up in an AfD discussion. it had been created almost immediately after the episode's title was discovered, but someone feared that, because little else was known, the article was worth deleting then recreating later. In the end, information came in too quickly for that fear to be maintained. In this case, the reason given was that it was being used as a soapbox. Nick mallory has helped to explain where the weaknesses may lie in that basis. I think it might also be said that virtually nothing was initially known about the book too, although now most if not all sections have been summarised. I guess articles put in AfD discussions evolve very quickly once there, because people who can contribute feel a greater pressure to do that soon. I understand your "don't look" idea, although I think this was about more tahn finding the topic shocking; an issue was whether the description of it given here was encyclopaediac, or whether it was likely to become more encyclopaediac. I hope that by answering what I think are sincere questions of yours but which for all I know were instead intended rhetorically I have made you feel more learned on this matter, even if it hasn't done any other good. 85.92.173.186 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as soapbox. every book on a controversy that attacks a well-known author is not thereby notable.
Keep Changed to keep on the basis of the improvements in the article. Even though my concerns over the article remain, the books has indeed received notable attention from critics in important publications, and, re-reading them, those articles discuss the book and its argument. Perhaps the supporters of this article will see fit to further improve it by condensing the long numbered summary to a paragraph or two. The content of the article make the intention obvious. If kept, the main section should be removed. The summary makes the article poorer, not better. DGG (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think you may be right. (I stress "may"; see below.) No one has managed to fix the article. I couldn't find anything on Google that would help. Personally, I think these "flea books" as they have been called should really be seen as instances of a social phenomenon that should be covered all in one article, partly because they all say exactly the same stuff. Some Catholic responded in another book to Professor RD. I bet i can guess the material: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, meaning in lives, X requires an intelligence, he doesn't know about theology. Right or wrong, those arguments are carbon-copies. I don't think such a 1-purpose article will get made, and if fit did it would probably get deleted, partly because we already have some articles on books like this in place ... and yet, i can't help but wonder whether Darwin's Angel has the notability, or will gain the increase in notability over time, we had been led to assume. I stand by my earlier statement that this AfD discussion needs to go on for a long time, because it's becoming clear that, at least for me if not for anybody else, my opinions on whether this article should exist are neither one-sided nor static. I even have doubts now about whether it will ultimately be decided that the article should be kept (which before I was sure was going to happen). Who knows how this discussion shall look in a week? 85.92.173.186 10:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the comment above was about the now scored-through position of DGG. 85.92.173.186 17:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anon. With so much to say please get yourself a WikiPedia ID so that we can interact with you properly. NBeale 12:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You suggested that recently. Thanks for trying to be helpful. Well, I currently feel the ability to create articles is not worth paying for by allowing people to post comments on my user page when I'd much rather keep things to standard talk pages. For now, I'll stick with things the way they are. (Besides, ironically, one argument people offer as a reason for getting an account is to become more anonymous.) 85.92.173.186 16:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you say the books/arguments are pathetic, you mean they commit fallacies - which is an objective fact. If you said their conclusion was wrong, that would be an opinion, but you didn't. Hence, I think that's an argument consistent with NPOV. As long as the article gets fixed, I think it makes some sense! ;) 85.92.173.186 07:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a thought. We all seem to have a good understanding of what about this article is considered unencyclopaedic, even if we think it's insufficient for deletion. One particular problem is the way positive descriptions are covered. I have an idea on how that might be amended, which could well help this discussion; but I'm wondering - is Wikipedia policy to put up such ideas on the talk page, the deletion page, or both? Incidentally, I was thinking of either removing the section on them or, perhaps better, inserting an explanation that they are brief comments on the book in articles that cover criticisms of Dawkins in general rather than being reviews. So, i guess I'm asking three questions: should I bring that up on the talk page too, and is it an idea people here like, and does bringing it up (or, for that matter, actually doing it) help with this AfD discussion? 85.92.173.186 11:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should take all that to the article's talk page. This page is for discussion of one question only: Should the article be deleted? Snalwibma 11:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. 85.92.173.186 13:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean - he actually points out a reason for what he says. Of the other four people, three just say "it's great, TGD isn't", while the other says something about anaesthesiology/Jesus that I don't get enough to judge. Of course, the fact that WP:BK insists on such critical commentary as Kenny gave doesn't seem to allow us to get those three unsubstantiated assertions out of the article. I'm not sure why quoting a non-argument is any better than a mnore concise statement that they liked it, but that's a matter for the talk page. It seems yet again the article has taken an unimagined turn. 85.92.173.186 19:37, 15 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Darwin%27s_Angel&oldid=1070970877"