Talk:Charles Darwin Trust

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because don't you have anything better to do than vandalise pages? --Flying Fische (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is obviously notable. Flying Fische (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not "vandalism"; please see here for more information on notability. You may also have a conflict of interest.  ajmint  (talk•edits) 18:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It clearly meets WP:ORG. Plus, I don't have a conflict of interest. Who do you think I am? Matthew Farrer? Flying Fische (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay — if you think it has enough reliable secondary sources to be notable, please add them to the article.  ajmint  (talk•edits) 18:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes. The people associated with it for a start mark it out from your average charity. Charles Darwin is one of the top scientists ever; I'd rate him second only to Sir Isaac Newton. This is the charity concerned with educating people about him. That's pretty bloody impressive if you know who CD was. Flying Fische (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The CDT has taken a leading role in the attempt to designate Down House a World Heritage Site. Flying Fische (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please check WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED. Best, Meph^talk 19:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it meets WP:N. I wouldn't rely on WP:NOTINHERITED; it is nonsense. Flying Fische (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, Speedy Delete. WP:ORG is quite clear in stating "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The Trust does get some mentions in secondary WP:RS, but I can't find any multiple, significant coverage that's ABOUT the trust. All of it is just trivial, incidental, passing references. And the fact that it's named after Charles Darwin is hardly sufficient to make it notable per WP standards. Qworty (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd ignore this troll. He's been trying to undo any good work I've done. Flying Fische (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'd suggest the both of you reign it in; one of the worst mistakes either of you could make is for me to take interest in you. I could teach a beagle tenacity and I don't take sides. HalfShadow 21:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

THIS IS CLEARLY NOT AN ADVERT"!!!!

So why is this idiotic tag added/

{{advert}}

{{notanadvert}}

Flying Fische (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not sound like an advert to me, so I have removed the advert tag. It does need to be sourced more reliably to establish some of the claims in it though, so I've restored a version that appears to match the current citation. It is open to additional sourcing to make stronger claims of centrality and notability though from reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the state of the article when the tag was added, it read like a charity leaflet. Flying Fische could possibly do with reading guidelines on being civil and how to assume good faith when dealing with other users. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)