This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Creationism

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles

Luskin's views

My addition of Luskin's assertion, that "ID does not have religious premises", is not a case of Wikipedia:POV pushing. I did not say that Luskin was correct, nor did I imply in any way that his idea is "equally as valid" as the mainstream. If there's any ambiguity, please help me to make it more clear that Luskin is departing from the mainstream and asserting a minority view. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luskin works for the DI in a fairly PRish role. He can therefore be expected to spout DI talking points (of which "ID does not have religious premises" is a fairly standard one -- as it is part of Neo-Creationism's dressing up of creationism as science not religion) on a fairly regular basis. This is hardly notable. I would suggest that we don't cover these talking points unless either:

They are sufficiently differentiated from the DI's corporate viewpoint to be worth placing here (rather than in Discovery Institute, Intelligent design or Neo-Creationism); or
His espousal of them has received reasonably significant coverage in the mainstream media.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I can't help but notice that 5 of the article's 6 sources (and the only sources that are third party) cover only a single sentence in the article. This is hardly indicative of "significant coverage". I am not going to notability-tag the article just yet, but I'm thinking that way. Really, Luskin is little more than a pipsqueak water-carrier for the IDM (and a laughingstock at that). Merging into a brief list-section of the CSC article on spokepeople, which can place him alongside such luminaries as Anika Smith & Robert Crowther, might be more appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you given that most of the references are pages from the centre for science and culture. I don't think this stub is notable enough. 86.178.144.203 (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why does this article exist?=

does everyone who is in a pr position at an organization get their own wiki article? does every employee of the discovery institute get a wiki article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I am the receptionist for the discovery institute, can I get a wiki article about myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luskin has a certain admitted prominence as a malign nuisance. Admittedly, having no other claim to fame, once he ceases to be a nuisance he will disappear from sight forever like last winter's piles of dingy snow, but for the time being he is entitled to the same level of fame as, say, a reality-TV show trash celebrity. MrG 168.103.83.189 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once delivered a pizza to the discovery institute's headquarters in Seattle, Washington. can I have an article about myself too? - Al the Pizza Delivery Guy in Seattle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine offices near the Discovery Institute. The other day I went to pick him up at the office for lunch and mistakenly went in the DIs office. Can I too have a Wikipedia Article about myself? I'm practically associated with the DI, I saw the inside of the foyer. Does that qualify me for an article about myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

proof that no one cares about casey luskin?

this article gets about 20 readers a day, which is probably those who edit it. check out the numbers here http://stats.grok.se/en/201006/casey%20luskin william dembski article gets about 5 more readers a day (no one seems to care about him either). charles darwin gets close to 6,000 readers a day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if the page view figure includes bots and search engine web crawlers?--Charles (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're searching on 'William_Dembski' (the redirect) not 'William_A._Dembski' (the article) -- the latter gets three times the hits of the former. Oh, and I've nominated this article for merger. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

I am not opposed to the merger. Guettarda (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]