RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/John Mackay

John Mackay | Result: Redirected to newly-created Creation Research article; other stubs deleted

John Mackay (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. This seems to be a relic of an older time on the wiki when we thought we needed articles on every single creationist, no matter how stubby. Tempted to delete it outright, but I figured someone might know a place to merge or redirect it to. This is also an AfD for Jonathan Witt and Robert E. D. Clark, which have similar problems. Plutocow (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
2. I agree; this one's not really needed. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
4. 11-year stub. Doesn't need a vote to delete in my opinion. Bongolian (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
5. Every creationist article should explain why we have an article on them, are they important in either politics or the creationist spheres? If not, burn it. A somebody. (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep

1. Is still active. Is still a creationist. Does not have a WP page. Nor does Creation Research.net [the org he works with]. If this isn't what RW is for, what the hell is it? Needs development, not binning. And if you want to AfD the other two, open separate cases for them, not a paperclipping of them onto this one. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

   I just spun up a draft for Creation Research. I am surprised they didn’t have an article here. I’d support merging the Mackay article into the draft. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

2. The only reason I'm seeing for deletion here is that people are too lazy to put the work into developing it. Carthage (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. While IMHO this stub isn't worth saving (some statements seem unsourced and wrong), Mackay seems to be a reasonably big figure in the international creationist scene (which is quite smaller than the US scene but still), and has strong links to Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, and the Institute for Creation Research. If there's anything of value in this stub, put it in the Creation Research draft; this sort of thing should be RW's "bread and butter", and I agree that lazy AfDs aren't the answer here. ^{— Unsigned, by: BobJohnson / talk / contribs}
2. -I agree with Johnson.-Flandres (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Goat

As far as the other stubs go:

A) I don't think Robert E.D. Clark is notable on his own, but per this link he was a council member of the Victoria Institute, which RW does not have an article on. While Clark was in the organization during a time period where it wasn't as relevant anymore, the Victoria Institute is one of the earliest anti-evolution organizations and seems to provide (at first glance) a fascinating link between the relationship between science and religion in the 19th century, particularly in England. (The Victoria Institute wasn't anything as stridently anti-evolution as young earth creationism; I gather that Darwin's theories were for some reason not seen as harmonious with the old Baconian method of science that members adhered to; they were also against Biblical criticism for the same reasons). So I'd say delete the stub, but maybe look into the Victoria Institute whenever one has time to look into historical anti-evolution obscura.

B) We already have an article on the Discovery Institute and I don't see much evidence that Jonathan Witt is notable beyond that. BobJohnson (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)