Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huxley Memorial Debate

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 redirect to Richard Dawkins . The arguments against retention have the day, but a redirect seems best given the keep comments. MBisanz talk 23:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huxley Memorial Debate

Huxley Memorial Debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable debate. As explained on the article's talk page for a while, there are no significant WP:RS to write an article about this. Though the audio from Richard Dawkins is here I don't see enough sources for a debate in memory of the 1860 Oxford evolution debate. BBiiis08 (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no in-depth coverage that would allow the article to develop beyond the bare-bones of who/where/what-topic/what-score. Sole citation is problematic as (i) a GoogleBook search of it does not turn up mention of the name of this debate (though does appear to confirm that some such debate did take place) & (ii) a quote verifying its coverage has not been forthcoming. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: notable discussion. (1) Dawkins has the mp3 files on his website. (2) Richard Dawkins wikiarticle mentions that his previous experience debating creationists led him to the conclusion not to do so anymore. It seems that the Huxley Memorial Debate is one cornerstone for his decision. (3) John Durant, now the director of the MIT museum [1] wrote a book chapter about it, which is cited in the article, and which is reproduced on the AAAS website [2].Northfox (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the trouble is that the AAAS version gives no indication that the debate was called the "Huxley Memorial Debate", and does not in fact use the word "memorial" at all. Nor does the Dawkins website. This article's title in fact appears to be WP:OR. What we have in fact is an unnamed debate. Additionally, only the first three paragraphs in Durant's chapter appear to be about this debate (although quite a bit of these three paragraphs are also on the 1860 debate). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:comment: google for 'Huxley Memorial Debate' will give several hits. Since the Oxford Union has allegedly lost the debate minutes (as one of the websites found in the google search claims), we might need to listen to the mp3 files to get some clues for the proper name. Possible actions: (1) A disclaimer in the article could be added pointing to the unclear status of the official title (if Union debates have titles at all), and using the Huxley Memorial Debate title because it is used in many websites (including Dembski's). (2) chose a different title. But the title discussion and AfD are two different things. Northfox (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google hits are insufficient, a WP:RS for the name is needed. "Listen[ing] to the mp3 files to get some clues for the proper name" = WP:OR. Without an official link to the original Huxley debate, the topic loses even more of what little claim to notability it had -- it essentially becomes just another debate between Scientists & Creationists -- of which there've been hundreds (many of them with equally prominent participants). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Northfox, if I understand you correctly, your evidence of notability consists of the mp3 files on Dawkins' website, a one-sentence mention in a wikipedia article, and a brief mention in John Durant's book. Only one of these sources (Durant) is reliable and independent of the subject (per Wikipedia:Notability) and he only mentions the debate briefly. Do you honestly think this constitutes "significant coverage"? Polemarchus (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to avoid suppression of the topic. We need to allow writers to expose ideas that run counter to mainstream currents of thought. This does not violate NPOV by making the contrary ideas "equally valid" - it merely shows that they exist, which is a far cry from endorsing them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, this article appears to have been created as a coatrack for a manufactured controversy, which isn't documented in any reliable sources. The article is the subject of one of the lamest edit wars I've seen — who the hell cares how many people happened to show up at a university debate 23 years ago to vote for the motion?) Polemarchus (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note A link about it is here. I suspect the deletionists here are trying to suppress the existence of the debate on such spurious grounds as (1) it's not notable or (2) we aren't sure it happened. "The exchange between Huxley and Wilberforce at the Oxford meeting was part of this debate. It has received some notoriety and seems to have gathered about it such a great deal of folklore that it is difficult to know precisely what happened. One thing that seems certain is that it did not happen the way popular stories have it." Wikipedia ought to tell its readers what really happened, if it can - or give both sides of the story if there's a dispute. Isn't that what NPOV says? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: that link is to the site of a self-described "self-employed builder" -- ludicrously unreliable! Your 'suspicions' and continual wild claims of 'suppression' have no factual basis whatsoever. This debate has received neither "notoriety" nor non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Why are you wasting our time with this Ed? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Ed Poor: Ed, the passage you've quoted above (on the exchange between Huxley and Wilberforce) is about the 1860 Oxford evolution debate — not the 1986 Huxley Memorial Debate, which we're discussing here. I can understand how a person might get confused though: the website you're quoting from is awfully amateurish, and certainly not an appropriate source for a Wikipedia article. If this event is notable, you should have no problem finding a reliable, published source that discusses it. If all you can find is infantile, fringe websites, then it's not an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Polemarchus (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete. From what I can remember, Dawkins mentions this debate several times in The God Delusion, but I can't find any mention of it by others (apart from the usual Y.E.C. nutcases, of course). yandman 08:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are literally thousands of debates in college societies around the world every week; nothing seems to set this apart from any of the others. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There may not be sufficient RSs to support a stand alone article. However this is an important event about Richard Dawkins as it partially shaped his resolve not to debate. Merge this into the Dawkins article. Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It already is in the Dawkins article. yandman 16:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Eaglefan. AfDs are not votes, and so an opinion without substantiation will be ignored. If you believe the article should be kept, you should explain why. yandman 21:31, 25 February 2009 (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/Huxley_Memorial_Debate&oldid=1079793947"