Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baraminology/Archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baraminology

Baraminology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is an article on a field of study that has no actual studies - at best a few popular books and such. While the main term is not ridiculously uncommon on google (~11,000 ghits), the article actually spends its time on four subterms: Holobaramin (788 ghits), Monobaramin (659 ghits), Apobaramin (422 ghits), and polybaramin (284 ghits) - given the number of Wikipedia mirrors out there, this is ridiculously low. I think we should delete it, or possibly redirect (given the dubiousness of its content, a merge seems inappropriate) to the more notable (if somewhat problematic regarding Undue Weight) Created kind. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No strong opinion yet, need time to think about it. However, the term is used by both creationists and their critics and the term itself has 13,000 hits on google. Also, I really would like to keep it for one reason - correct Hebrew(I think) would not be "baramin" but "min baru" and so it seems the people who coined the phrase were native English speakers and didn't know much hebrew. Now, that's currently OR but if we can find a citation for it I'd love to have that detail there. It is just so funny. JoshuaZ 05:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A fair point in theory, but I don't trust any of the actual content. I suppose we could do radical surgery on it, but it might not leave us with a viable article left. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Fairly notable term. Most religions don't have any studies. --Ineffable3000 05:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ...Well, I'm not quite sure this counts as research - the papers seem to be made as difficult to read as possible, but it looks like what they're mainly doing is showing that small branches of the evolutionary tree are true - hence we can ignore lower levels of the tree. But anyway, surely the notable term is "baramin" not "baraminology"? Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Creation biology Created kind (per other editors). There is not enough actual content to justify an article, but it is a subset of CB, so it could be used there. Doc Tropics 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The evidence for "no studies" seems to be a link to a medical index which gives just two hits for "universal common descent". Try Google scholar for a few more hits - it may all be nonsense but it seems to be there. And if you were to merge it, created kind seems more logical. --Henrygb 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to say that none of those cites on Google Scholar actually says anything that would count as research in academia, and almost none of them actually even claim to describe research in baraminology themselves. The best paper - I can find - the one linked from the page fails to actually do any research, instead applying a mathematical model not developed by them to data not acquired by them, and claiming it somehow (they don't explain how) models their claim of created kinds. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This "field" is fairly well known in the creation-evolution debate. It merits its own topic fork irrespective of its lack of credibility from a scientific standpoint. No objection to merging with or redirecting to Creation biology if the interested editors choose this avenue. But it would not be appropriate to delete entirely. ... Kenosis 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. or merge. This is pseudoscience at best, if there was published research, that would be one thing, but this is just drek.--Buridan 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The fact that it's pseudoscience is all the more reason to have an article on it. Many people believe this is a legitimate field of biology. This article should dispel this belief. Also the history of this "field" is also something interesting. For those two reasons I believe this article should be kept. Why is everyone wanting to get rid of all creationist belief articles by tagging them as pseudoscience or claiming they give undue weight? These articles are your chance to clarify to those that believe that these beliefs are exactly that beliefs...nothing more. Pbarnes 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I oposse this one because, although the term is somewhat well-known, there doesn't seem to be more than a few sentences in the article that deal with verifiable facts about it. Indeed, it opens up with a confusing naming of a lot of terms which do not show up in any significance on Google. In short, there doesn't seem to be an ability to talk about it in a verifiable way that reflects the "field" accurately. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• It's a weird field, and I don't oppose merging with "created kinds" or something of the sort, but I am opposed to deletion, so keep. Guettarda 22:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Or at least merge. What little information is unique to the article I cannot tell. Xiner 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but recommend drastic NPOV improvements, particularly evidence against baraminology as opposed to universal common descent. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Into Created kind- the subject amounts to the study of created kinds and it would make more sense to have this material discussed as a subsection in that context than anywhere else. JoshuaZ 22:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Of course it's pseudoscience; that's why it's in the pseudoscience category. But how will people know that it's pseudoscience if we delete the article? -- Cat Whisperer 00:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's pseudosciene but that is clearly stated. It shows how far these wacky creationists will go to prove a point - Uncle J 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - "Created kind", the target for the suggested merge, is also in "Cat. Psuedoscience"; thus, no info will be lost. Doc Tropics 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The Created Kinds article makes this article out to be the "creationist equivalent" to cladistics, which sounds like something of quite a bit of notability and worth for an individual article to me. Homestarmy 03:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful, verifiable, although weird Mukadderat 01:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — per Uncle J. Dionyseus 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keepthat i find these views absurd does not make them unnotable.The term seems to be standard in some circles.DGG 07:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with created kind. It's clear that it's pseudoscience, and that's noted in the article. (Thought it could a bit more on the conscpicious lack of curiousity among creationists as to the nature and boundaries of these kinds.) grendel|khan 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.