Talk:Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center

message: I think what makes IDEA Center noteworthy is their quest to put ID chapters into high schools.  They explain how most public high schools are required to allow most clubs to form if they don't advocate violence, drugs, etc.  They offer a packet of instructions to those who sign a statement that they agree with the IDEA mission statement.  I have not found much information about this group except in random blogs, so it will be difficult to cite.Desoto10 (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: How can the matters raised in this section be "controversies" when it is only cited to IDEA itself, and there is no indication that any third parties even noticed? Were they arguing among themselves? I think not. I'm changing the section name to 'Activities'. HrafnTalkStalk 10:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Controversies' section 

message: Given (i) the lack of third party coverage & (ii) the fact that it seems to be running out of steam (MacNeill's analysis plus the short tenure of Caroline Crocker), is it time to consider merging this article into Intelligent design movement? I'm not at the stage of formally nominating it just yet, but I am leaning that way. HrafnTalkStalk 10:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger? 

message: I'm failing to see how this is appropriate at all. The source is blog from a professor who is clearly involved in the ID debate, his blog is named "THE EVOLUTION LIST" and has made numerous posts on the ID. From the cited post every mention of intelligent design is wrapped in scare quotes and the post is ended with "So, why did I illustrate this post with a picture of a dodo? Because, like the "intelligent design" movement, the dodo was notorious for its stupidity and that fact that it is extinct." I'm not exactly a great supporter of the ID movement but can we at least appear to be impartial? BJTalk 00:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From memory, this blog was created to aid in a course that MacNeill was teaching on the evo/creo debate, which engaged the local IDEA Center in positive discussion. Yes, we could pull all blog-sourced material from this article, but then it'd lack any significant third-party sourcing, be unbalanced (in that it'd be almost solely sourced to IDEA Center itself) & unable to meet WP:Notability requirements. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the only sources are primary and a few blogs is the organization notable at all? BJTalk 05:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See # Notability & #Merger? above. I'll probably get around to nominating it for merger sometime, if somebody doesn't beat me to it. But given (i) such things often get flak from some of the Intelligent Design Project old-guard (who take removal of such articles personally) & (ii) I already have a contentious merger 'on my books' trying to merge Quality Science Education for All back into Larry Caldwell, I don't plan to do anything about it in the immediate future. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: "Active" in this administrative sense merely means that the corporation is continuing to file returns, etc -- not that it is active in any wider sense. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "organization is moribund" 

message: Due to (i) lack of substantive third party sourcing (a blog post and a waybacked article from a relatively obscure university center is all there is) & the fact that the organisation appears moribund, I'm proposing merging (the lead of) this article (which happens to be the only section with third-party sourcing) into List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I know it is popular among some to constantly trim down the size of WP, but I take the opposite position. This organization is clearly notable, at least for historical reasons. It does not appear to be as active now as it once was, but that does not mean it is not relevant when one is seeking to document human knowledge and activities.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree with deletion proposal 

message: See basically done discussion here Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  smithsonian EL