English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Texas Citizens for Science

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. John254 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Texas Citizens for Science

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

^{Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}}

Dearth of reliable sources to establish notability. Akin to equally unnotable Minnesota Citizens for Science Education. TableManners^C·U·T 05:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

weak keep There are a variety of reliable sources that discuss the organization with four mentions in google news in the last two weeks alone [1] and there are other older hits as well. The organization's president Steven Schafersman may be notable as well (between his academic work and his work with this organization). If it is decided not to be notable enough then I would suggest a merge into Guettarda's list which will be flushed out enough to be in main space soon I expect. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Three of the sources are from the Austin American-Statesman, and the fourth is from the NCSE, a friendly group of the same type only national in scope as far as I can tell. But thanks for the links to the articles. I'll read the Austin american statesman article and see if I can use them in the article. TableManners^C·U·T 05:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep There are a smattering of independent sources. The problems created from direct postings at wp by the TCS spokesperson are remediable. The key here is to defer to the smattering of independent sources, and not let this become a mirror of its self-published materials. Skimpy stubs are okay, and far preferable than self-published sourcing of promotional or 'attacking' style content. I left a caution to this effect several weeks back to an editor I recognized as spearheading the organization, (advising not to edit directly controversial claims directly but to offer sources via talk), advice I hope he took to heart. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- addendum-Not at all sure he did, since he created the article after my message. I still say keep, just work to let independent sources determine content, not its president. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, PM. I just put up the appropriate COI notices. TableManners^C·U·T 05:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My advice may have been too subtle of a hint. I don't mean to unleash an ambush of the newbie. The AFD's can coax good sources out of nowhere, which is good. Editor coaching and keep urges here shouldn't be contingently linked. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - the group is notable. Texas Citizens for Science are important players in the Christine Comer issue; they played an important role in the ICR accreditation affair; and they played a very notable role in the 2003 science textbook battle in 2003. The filed an amicus brief in the Cobb county Georgia textbook sticker case. They were cited in CJ Troost in his book "Apes or Angels" and Mark Isaak "The Countercreationism Handbook". They are cited in reputable publications like the the Austin Statesman, GeoTimes, Inside Higher Ed, The Chronicle of Higher Education...Also in the newsletter of the Texas Association of Biology Teachers, the Texas A&M student paper, the Texas Observer... and many other sources (it's pretty obvious if you do an even cursory google search). Guettarda (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Any reliable source to this effect? Thanks. TableManners^C·U·T 05:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To what effect? That you can find these and other sources if you bother to do a google search? Guettarda (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment If you have a source produce it please. TableManners^C·U·T 05:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If I have a source for the fact that you can find these and many other sources through Google? Nope. I can't source that statement - it's what's called an observation. Unlike in a mainspace article, it's acceptable to make observations in a deletion debate. Guettarda (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

~~weak~~keep per JoshuaZ. TableManners^C·U·T 05:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - the nominator has voted to Keep. I think we can consider this nom withdrawn and close as a Speedy Keep. Guettarda (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - ~~I don't see the harm in waiting for a more diverse set of views. It was a weak keep based on one reliable source, (one news piece, two blogs by the same author).~~ TableManners^C·U·T 06:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Okay, I think there are enough sources in the article for a speedy keep. TableManners^C·U·T 07:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ keep: I probably wouldn't have created this article myself just yet, but it is at least barely notable (per Austin American-Statesman articles), and is likely to become more so as Texas Board of Education consideration of evolution heats up and if the ICR accreditation controversy continues. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: there are definitely WP:RS mentions of them being active in the 2003 Texas SBOE hearings on biology textbooks -- unfortunately they're sufficiently old as to be difficult to get full texts of them online (registration/subscription/etc required). So I'm upgrading my recommendation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Per discussion above. References now look fine. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Anyone who is familiar with this area realizes that one of the most active of the state organizations of this type is the Texas Citizens for Science. They are frequently quoted in newspapers and other reliable sources. They create petitions and get scientists to sign them and send them to legislators. They publish opinion pieces. They hold rallys and other events. For example, in the Christine Comer episode, the TCS was frequently contacted for comments. Although there are not yet many references cited in the article, anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the creation-evolution controversy will definitely know that this group is notable.--Filll (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep as per everybody else, sad Texas needs to have such an organisation but it does, hence so do we. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Steven Schafersman - there are no independent reliable sources for the organization, though there are for its president. Argyriou (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: actually we have a number of "independent reliable sources" for the organisation: one from Geotimes/American Geological Institute and several from the Austin American-Statesman. Yes, they generally have Schafersman speaking on behalf of TCS, but that's not unusual (and one of the functions of an organisation's president) -- you'd find a similar pattern with Kansas Citizens for Science and Jack Krebs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:33, 23 January 2008 (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.