Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mims–Pianka controversy

:{{la|Mims–Pianka controversy}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Mims–Pianka controversy}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Mims–Pianka controversy}})

:I have requested that a link to the previous AfD nomination of this page be linked here, as is standard procedure for AfDs. Since that hasn't been done in the usual manner I add the link here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mims-Pianka controversy. __meco (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a 2006 speech made at a scientific gathering. Two people (William Dembski and Forrest Mims) claimed, without any transcript or recording, that a scientist said controversial things. Most of the article is based on Dembski and Mims' blogs hurling accusations of "bioterrorism". Any well-sourced material should be merged in the articles of the authors (as it already is) and the article should be deleted. In the last four years, nothing has come of this. AlanW59Borr (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of news coverage of the event and following controversies, highly notable (among others NBC, Associated Press, Austin American-Statesman, News Weekly, The Gazette-Enterprise; the incident is mentioned already in books: [http://books.google.com/books?id=43PgkFInBFYC&pg=PA128&dq=pianka+mims&hl=en&ei=tYjzTO3mI4Ki4Qb5wtHHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pianka%20mims&f=false], [http://books.google.com/books?id=DTpw7Ry-tEAC&pg=PA46&dq=pianka+mims&hl=en&ei=tYjzTO3mI4Ki4Qb5wtHHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=pianka%20mims&f=false]). Not to mention, it feels really fishy that new editor's fifth edit is to post an AfD. --Sander Säde 09:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:Let's assume good faith in the absence of evidence of bad faith, no? --Danger (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::Sorry, but this smells strongly as an attempt to censor Wikipedia, both the nomination and then another fresh editor changing the articles. --Sander Säde 11:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::This isn't about censorship. This is about nominating an article about something that happened in the blogosphere more than FOUR years ago and fails WP:EVENT. AlanW59Borr (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. This controversy has clearly received enough mainstream publicity to make it notable. Then it matters not that the center of the controversy is poorly documented. __meco (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The information should be covered in the articles about the persons. An article about a "controversy" is not normal on WP. I am also concerned about BLP and NPOV problems if an article is only about negative things. Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Articles about controversies are very common on Wikipedia. That's why I have added the article to :Category:2006 controversies and :Category:Controversies in the United States. Your references to BLP and NPOV issues also seem quite moot as long as you cannot point to anything specific in the article. The fact that it "is only about negative things" can hardly be said to be in violation of any policies or guidelines. __meco (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete An examination of the sources reveals that many are simply rehashes of other sources with some commentary, as is standard practice in blogging, and thus should not be considered distinct sources. There is no national or international coverage of any depth. (The one international source is a short spot that recaps a blog post that is already referenced.) Coverage is not persistent. The event appears to have had no lasting effects and has not become, say, an standard example of pro-extinction rhetoric or something like that. Thus, per notibility guidelines, this article should be deleted, with limited relevant material moved to related pages, with no prejudice against resurrection should the event become notable in the future. --Danger (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::NBC, Associated Press, Austin American-Statesman, News Weekly, The Gazette-Enterprise are all "blogs"?! Not to mention, the incident has already made into the books, [http://books.google.com/books?id=43PgkFInBFYC&pg=PA128&dq=pianka+mims&hl=en&ei=tYjzTO3mI4Ki4Qb5wtHHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pianka%20mims&f=false], [http://books.google.com/books?id=DTpw7Ry-tEAC&pg=PA46&dq=pianka+mims&hl=en&ei=tYjzTO3mI4Ki4Qb5wtHHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=pianka%20mims&f=false]. I must say there is not a shred of doubt it satisfies "notibility" guidelines. --Sander Säde 11:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::I apologize, I got the sources confused. It is the "official" journalism stories that are merely rehashes of the Citizen Scientist posts. The News Weekly article, the international source, is primarily a summary of one of those posts. The NBC sources are local news, local interest stories. The books are more interesting, but the first is a short blurb in a self-published book (The Resistence is Mark Dice's personal publishing house for his manifestos (manifesti?), apparently.) So what we are down to in terms of lasting impact is three paragraphs. The controversy itself, by the dates of the sources, lasted a couple of days, trailing out about a week before it was discarded for more interesting chew toys. Not every stimulus the traditional media and the blogosphere grabs hold of warrants a Wikipedia article. --Danger (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Additional references at a national or international level:

:::Chronicle of Higher Education "Dr. Doom' Under Siege" April 6, 2006 [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/06/science]

:::Fox News from the Associated Press, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190479,00.html]

:::Washington Post [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/72627696.html?dids=72627696:72627696&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+01%2C+1990&author=Charles+Trueheart&pub=The+Washington+Post+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Big+Bang+Over+Belief+At+Scientific+American%3B+Creationist+Writer+Charges+Religious+Bias&pqatl=google]

'CBS News [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/11/blogophile/main1487924.shtml]

These are international or national sources. They are all of them full stories. They are obviously based upon the original sources, as all journalism is. That they are all based upon the actual primary events is the case of all journalism and history. Some partially repeat--there are only the actual original statements--what should they rather have done, invent their own? But the Chronicle story is certainly independent--I go by it in judging the evaluation of the importance of academic events, as it is the only current major US current news source for this area. The CBS one reports on the controversy specifically, and shows the blog postings to have been worth the attention of a major news report. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

:The Chronicle of Higher Education article, as do the other articles, just rehash Mims and Dembski (anti-evolution people) claiming a Pianka speech intended something with scientists disputing Mims' claims. The point isn't that sources should make stuff up, the point is that beyond the week blogs and a few news sources picked this up, it has no wider relevance. Nothing ever came of it or demonstrates significance. It is all started by Forrest Mims' posting on The Citizen Scientist (which he edits) wanting to get people, as the Chronicle pointed, to distrust scientists.

:The article fails WP:EVENT. It does not "have enduring historical significance." It does not have "widespread (national or international) impact." A few news sources picked up Mims' posting. But beyond that this has no relevance. Keeping the article implies it has wider "historical significance." No one has demonstrated that.

:As explained at Wikipedia:EVENT#Duration_of_coverage: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Hence, it fails the criteria for WP:EVENT and should be deleted. AlanW59Borr (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect to Eric Pianka, as the event is mainly part of his biography, and perhaps merge some relevant material. I'm not seeing the lasting importance of this spat beyond what needs to be said in the bios of the two protagonists.  Sandstein  21:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge back into Eric Pianka, per Sandstein. There is some evidence that this article could be sourced and kept. Way back in 2007, when I first got involved, the Google test was much more popular in the community than it is now, and I see that consensus has changed. The usual outcome nowadays is to merge such controversies into the BLP of the protagonist. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

: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.