Deletion of TrueOrigin Archive

Comment: Most of the sources in the article are from the website itself.  The additional sources offered in this discussion don't appear to meet the |reliable sources guideline, and my google searching didn't turn up any better sources.  No prejudice against recreation if the site becomes more notable at a later time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This isn't notable. The "counterpart" the Talk Origins Archive has multiple, independent |reliable sources that discuss it. The TrueOrigin Archive does not. It massively fails . If someone can find reliable sources that talk about it I will consider changing my position
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:WEB)

Comment: It is not that widely referred to nor is it at all prominent in the creationist movement. For example, it gets a total about 10 mentions on AIG's webpage (see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aanswersingenesis.org+TrueOrigins&btnG=Google+Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Aanswersingenesis.org+%22True+Origins%22&btnG=Search ) and none from the ICR http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Aicr.org+%22TrueOrigins%22&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aicr.org+%22True+Origins%22&btnG=Google+Search. AIG is a notable creationist ministry, as is the ICR. Both have multiple independent, reliable sources. Similarly for Kent Hovind's ministry. True Origins is not notable. There's simply nothing we can write about it other than its existence that complies with 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: I was contacted on my talk page by profg for input. This article seems to be mainly sourced by primary self-published sources, afoul of the last criteria of . If there were one or two secondary independent sources, such as a newspaper article which this website was the main subject of, or even a significant subject of, I could be convinced to switch to a keep
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SELFPUB)

Comment: Miserably fails , , or for that matter whichever set of |notability criteria you choose to apply to it.A self-referential rehash of the website which provides no secondary sources, independent commentary, analysis, or anything that would make it encyclopedic. Delete unless non-trivial independent, reliable secondary source coverage can be produced.  is not a valid argument in the first place, but even if it were, comparing this to TalkOrigins Archive is ludicrous - that site has been noted by the National Academy of Sciences, the Smithsonian, ''Scientific American'', mentioned in college textbooks, etc. This one is not in the same league notability-wise
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:ORG||WP:N||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Article fails , in particular .  Currently just seems to be a |container used to transport cleaning products in and would fail  if used as such.  Arguements to keep are not addressing the very basic failures in Wikipedia policy that this article suffers from, notability as a start
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:WEB||WP:SOAP||WP:EL)

Comment: I think I've located a page that reveals compliance with , namely, http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp this page concerning criticisms of trueOrigins. It seems like there's indeed been multiple, "reliable" published works criticizing various things on TrueOrigins. Why this isn't mentioned in the article, I don't know, because it probably should be
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Does not rise to the standards of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)