Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaurs: A Creationist's Faulty View.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already redirected. Woohookitty 05:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaurs: A Creationist's Faulty View.

POV, original research, promises of more "wiki articles" to come...joy. I tagged it as a speedy but another user disagrees with that assessment, so here 'tis. Lucky 6.9 8 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

• Delete inherently POV title --Doc (?) 8 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: Lucky 6.9's Faulty View ;) Sorry, I had to. I'm not sure it qualifies as speedy, but I'm more than happy to say Delete on your grounds. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
  • Time to get my eyes checked.  :^P - Lucky 6.9 8 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)
• Keep edit out POV keep the content. very good topic once it is NPOV'ed 134.161.244.216 8 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure POV original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
• Delete; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jaxl 8 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
• Delete, Blatant angry non-NPOV.--Vizcarra 8 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
• Delete. Extreme POV --Neigel von Teighen 8 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
• Neutral could be kept and if the tone was made more sophisticated and it was moved to a more sensible name. Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful, of which there may be none, into Young Earth creationism. There's a short section on dinosaurs there already, and it could be lengthened with a de-POV-ization of parts of this article. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 22:09 (UTC)
• Merge. Even if we were to somehow eliminate the POV tone, it would have to be moved as the title doesn't meet WP nomenclature guidlines. Merge into Young Earth Creationism if anything is salvageable. Fernando Rizo 8 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)
• Merge if possible, per above. If nothing can be merged, then delete. I left a note on the page for the author about the POV issues with the article but I don't think the author cares.--Alabamaboy 8 July 2005 23:52 (UTC) Delete. I originally raised the issue of this article not being a candidate for speedy delete b/c the author was a newbie and could possibly learn how to do NPOV. This is not happening. I also don't believe the article can be merged at this point. Delete this now and move on to other issues.--Alabamaboy 14:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a total rant and I don't think the author deserves the benefit of the doubt that any of his info is worth merging anywhere. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 01:19 (UTC)
• Delete ranting POV, original research. -Splash 9 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
• Merge into Young Earth creationism. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)
• Abstain, but I believe more dispassionate content of this sort would belong as rebuttal in Young Earth Creationism. Xoloz 9 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)
• Delete, POV. Radiant_>|< July 9, 2005 08:07 (UTC)
• Delete as per Radiant --Russ Blau (talk) July 9, 2005 11:18 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. This article's creation was an accident, see the creator's talk page, where he says "So can you delete the article from this site, please?" (Crazyharp81602 (talk • contribs) --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
  • He changed his mind. I urged him to participate in this discussion. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Changing vote to speedy delete. The page has been blanked. - Lucky 6.9 9 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)
• Actually, no it hasn't.... I just went there... but I'm going to vote Speedy delete as attack page/rant too. --Idont Havaname 20:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing worth merging from this poorly written rant. Denni☯ 23:46, 2005 July 9 (UTC)

• Delete - POV --InformationalAnarchist 23:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ok everyone, I've look at your neutral point of view page and I got the message. I went back and fixed my entire article to fit in with what you want out of an wiki article. Is my article exactly what you want? I hope so. Plus I would like to make a request. Since I'm new here and I can't rename the title of my article just yet, can you please rename my article to Dinosaurs: The Young Earth View and the Critic's Objections of it? I would really appreciate it. Please do not delete my article. Let me keep it on your site and merge it with the Young earth creationism article. Hopefully this is what you want.Crazyharp81602 10 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

• It's nice, for a change, to see someone actaully go and read the guidances as a result of their article turning up on VfD. However, in the very first sentence you say "Young Earth Creationists (YECs) holds a very bizarre belief " — without reading any further, that is still POV. Reading further, the article still has profound POV problems in at least several places. Also, an article of this nature, and without verifiable references to externalize the viewpoints, is original research which is also disallowed, I'm afraid. -Splash 17:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The author fixed the opening and has inserted some references. I believe this definately fall under the "don't bite the newbie" rule. Since the author is very willing to work to bring this article to acceptable standards, we should not delete it. The title, though, will have to change. Any suggestions? (BTW, in light of the author's willingness to change the article, I have changed my vote to keep.--Alabamaboy 21:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't think my comment bites the newbies at all. And it still stands, since there are many parts of the article where the emphasis is clearly that the creationists are wrong, another example would be "When confronted with the true notion, given out by critics, that plants do die after they are eaten, YECs would counter this". I still think that the article remains essentially POV original research. As for the references, they are so POV they almost need removing on the spot, saying "they don't mix" and calling it a "heresy". It's good that the author wants to improve it, but I think the article should be deleted and the author work on it in their userspace until it it can be made an article again. -Splash 21:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree the article still has major POV issues. I recommended to the author that he keep working on the article--especially on the POV issues--even if it is deleted. Perhaps he could title it Dinosaurs (Young Earth creationism). I just hate to discourage a newbie (esp. since I'm such a newbie myself).--Alabamaboy 21:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. However, if this article text is deleted and the content recreated on another page, it would qualify for speedy deletion as reposted content. Hence my suggestion to copy it to the author's userspace, where this kind of thing is ok. If it survives the VfD there is of course no problem. -Splash 22:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I believe the article should not be deleted. Why not give the author and others a chance to finish rewriting the piece, to achieve NPOV and so on? --Alabamaboy 14:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Because, personally, I do not think there exists an encyclopedic NPOV article to be made. Sounds harsh, but that's just the way I see it. -Splash 15:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Inherently POV. ~~~~ 22:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• 'keep any inherent POV is due to creationists being morons, not in the article.
• Delete "A Creationist's Faulty View." You can tell it's POV from just looking at the title. It also is not written very well. -- BMIComp (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.