Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6,000 to 10,000 years

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 6,000 to 10,000 years

Tagged by user:Ghepeu but I'm happy to complete the nomination. Already covered by Young earth creationism so simply delete this --Doc (?) 15:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete POV fork of young earth creationism. Revolución 15:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wasn't this deleted before? Delete either way. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 16:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I believe it was. Delete it again. --Whimemsz 23:37, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • User Truthteller created the article, and I believe that it is the same person who created the old one, as the same kind of rubbish is on his user page. Revolución 01:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Revolución. As a second option, a redirect would be harmless. -- BD2412 talk 19:03, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  • Redirect into Lightfoots dating system. Falphin 21:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This [insert demeaning phrase here] individual has been turning Wikipedia into his own personal underwear stain. --brian0918™ 04:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Creation science isn't science. Haikupoet 04:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What a pointless, POV statement. ··gracefool |☺ 08:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - Creation science gets an article, and verily deserves it. This article, however, is just a range of dates, a conclusion rather than an explanation, as it were. -- BD2412 talk 20:28, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete — redundant, highly PoV, and lacking credibility. Judging by his user page, he is "on a mission from god"®. So we'll probably see many more like this one. — RJH 20:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This is POV, redundant, and infinitely deletable, but I don't like the temperature of these remarks either. What happened to 'no personal attacks'? This user is entitled to his unpopular opinions (although not to push them in this manner). Why is it that certain views produce such spleen from otherwise fair-minded people? The 'Church of Reality' POV nonsense got an easier time - despite its sock puppets. --Doc (?) 21:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vitriol reflex, I guess. People on the rationalist side get tired of trying to defend their positions against people who selectively examine the evidence and refuse to listen when they're being called on their tactics. It's as if, in the middle of a boxing match, the opponent switches to taekwondo or Brazilian Jiu-Jutsu instead of following the rules; therefore their responses come out in a frustrated and rather nasty manner. Haikupoet 22:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I hate to sound so negative, given some of the nasty comments above, but if Truthteller makes another article like this, there needs to be an RFC or mediation request. →Ingoolemo← talk 23:57, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect, and protect. -Sean Curtin 03:12, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but see Doc's comment. ··gracefool |☺ 08:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.