Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation science

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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creation science

This article fulfills the following chritera from the deletion policy page:

• Not encyclopedic material - refer to WP:NOT paragraph 1.3: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Creation science is a term invented by creationism to lend credibility to their ideology.
• Creation science hasn't been published in peer-reviewed scientific publications, and therefore constitutes original research.
• Falls broadly under the category of "advertisement or other spam" - there's allready a page dedicated to the topic of Creationism, the term "Creation science" is inherently biased.
• Completely idiosyncratic non-topic - only creationists think of creationism as a science.

Additionally:

• Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article.

Proposed action:

Merge and redirect to Creationism.

Spazzm 22:43, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

• Keep The creation science movement is an important movement within creationism and has significance to both theology and the cultural acceptance of science. Creationism is not creation science. Young Earth creationism is not creation science, though creation science is a subset of creationism and strongly connected to YECism. But YECism isn't creation science either (see omphalos, Ussher-Lightfoot calendar). It's very transparent pseudoscience, that's why it is in category:pseudoscience. But pseudoscience is culturally significant yet scientifically insignificant. Creationism may seem like a blunt instrument, but is also very subtle, and explaining this subtlety should be of use to those opposed to it, and they should reach a better understanding of it and write better articles. (Though I do think the philosophy section may have been "untgssed"). btw, if this goes, flood geology should go too. Dunc|☺ 22:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, there have been several very popular books written on the subject (start with The Genesis Flood), despite it being unpeer-reviewed, an NPOV reflection of unpeer-reviewed ideas is encyclopedic. Dunc|☺ 23:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Though I disagree with the reasons given by the nominator for listing it for deletion, I do think this might well be merged with Creationism as one of the ways in which that religious view represents itself. As I have argued on previous occasions, there are quite a few too many articles covering various aspects of creationism. --BM 23:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I would not merge with Creationism as they are separete concepts. Not all creationists are creation scientists. If you look at the talk page, you'll see that I have been defending this page for the last 3 days. My arguments for keeping are well represented there. Furthermore, this does not fall under the definition of original research, advertisement or patent nonesence. This nomination was not made from a NPOV. DaveTheRed 23:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Trolling nomination. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Creationism. Creation science is an ideologically and politically motivated propaganda tool and a neologism whose only purpose is to promote the creationist agenda in society. The term "creation science" was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between science and religion, thereby underservedly legitimizing creationism by association to science. Further more it is my believe that if wikipedians don't make a firm and clear stand against such use of propaganda in wikipedia, then the whole project looses credibility. The main asumption of wikipedia is thats its user will autoregulate the content. If we fail to do so in this instance then I fear that the assumption is incorrect and thus credibility will only be gained by revising policies and their implementations. --LexCorp 23:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment:Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, not a scientific point of view. DaveTheRed 00:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you know the meaning of propaganda? Can there be NPOV propaganda? No don't think so and neither should you.--LexCorp 00:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda can not be NPOV. A wikipedia article about propaganda can be NPOV, and should. DaveTheRed 00:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you believe that why did you revert my inclusion of propaganda in the definition of Creation Science arguing that it was POV. Is or is it not propaganda?--LexCorp 03:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because it is not NPOV to flat out state that something is propaganda in the first sentence of the article, especially when there are people who would disagree. DaveTheRed 06:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see and it is NPOV to flat out state that creation science is "the use of the scientific method to study God's creation" in the first sentence when there are even more people who would disagree to that. Funny concept you have there of NPOV.

• Keep. Reasons for deletion severely misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Eric119 23:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: What deletion?. The main drive of this Vfd is to merge it with creationism. No one suggested deletion. Lets not cry wolf. he? --LexCorp 00:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merges don't need consensus from this page, only from the talk pages of the pages concerned. If someone wants to merge pages they shouldn't list them on vfd. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 00:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The debate was going in circles, other users encouraged VfD listing. The 'original research' point alone should lead to deletion but I do agree that some of the material has value, thus the 'Merge' compromise. Spazzm 00:12, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

If you have a problem like that, where the "usual suspects" on a page are deadlocked, it's probably best to file an RfC, so you'll get some fresh brains on the job. -- John Fader (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Article as it stands may have problems, but it's a legitimate topic, distinct from Creationism in general. Keep -- Jmabel | Talk 00:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, creation science is a crock, but it's a widely known and discussed one. The topic is encyclopedic. Article should carry more objective, debunking content though. Wyss 00:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Creationism. They cover the same topic. Jonathunder 00:33, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

• Keep even though the subject matter is something I wish would go away, people view these as distinct things. Merging is a value judgement on the debate.Merge and redirect to Creationism. -- Cleduc 05:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep separate. Reasons given for merging are misinterpretations of wikipedia policy. Kappa 01:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- the article is slightly POV but does a sufficiently good job of justifying its opinions that it's forgiveable. Given the status that the term "creation science", uh, enjoys in the creation vs. evolution debate, there is no justifiable reason for eliminating or merging this article. In fact, if it was merged with Creationism I'd think the appropriate thing to do would be to break it out again. Besides which, nominator is phenomenally wrong about it being a minor branch of a minor subject -- there are an awful lot of people on both sides of the debate that will disagree. Haikupoet 02:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In the interest of accuracy, I have never claimed that Creationism is a minor subject. I claim that Creation science is a minor branch of Creationism. Spazzm 02:10, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete Merge and redirect, faith is not science therefore the term is incorrect. Megan1967 03:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have changed my vote above upon further consultation with other editors. Megan1967 11:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps it would be a good idea to remember Wikipedia's Naming conventions, which state that articles are named after what the majority of people call something. DaveTheRed 03:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's keep it on the talk page, please. Spazzm 03:54, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
      • Um....Megan's vote seems to indicate she thinks Creation science should be deleted because its name is an oxymoron. I pointed out that the name Creation science conforms to our naming conventions. How is that not appropriate to this discussion??? DaveTheRed 03:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Because it's already been endlessly debated on the talk page. Discussions in this space makes it harder to tally votes. And the majority knows it as Creationism. --Spazzm 04:04, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Keep. Like it or not it's notable pseudoscience, similar to Flat Earth Society.--Gene_poole 04:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wow, I actually agree with Gene Poole on something. Miracles never cease. Samboy 08:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Creation science is an oxymoron and a steaming pile of velociraptor droppings, but the phenomenon of people working to back up Genesis through science (or an approximation thereof) does exist, under this name. Notable and sufficiently distinct from Creationism and should be kept. Assuming it can be kept NPOV. At the moment the article is seriously lacking as it suggests that for most of the Creationism movement creation scientists have supported a young earth theory. It has nothing on day-Age creationism etc. Sabine's Sunbird 05:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but the article needs to deal with the problem that the term "creation science" is itself POV. (I agree with LexCorp that the term is "a neologism whose only purpose is to promote the creationist agenda in society.") We have other articles with such titles. The articles on Poverty pimp and Chickenhawk (politics) both begin by making clear, in the first sentence, that the article title is a phrase chosen to convey a particular POV, rather than a neutral description. JamesMLane 08:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you try. When I did it I was inmediatelly acused of no NPOV. The futher I have got is the second paragraph.--LexCorp 08:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and do not merge. This is a very commonly used phrase and is precisely the sort of thing that people would come to wikipedia for. It is also very distinct from creationism, which makes no attempt to phrase its arguments in scientific sounding lingo. I have heard dinosaur bones explained away by creationists (but not creation scientists) as placed in the ground by the devil to tempt believers. The creation scientist will carefully refute the results of radioactive decay due to groundwater contamination, the stratigraphic layers as elevation-based community structure, the fossilization in sedimentary rock as occurring in the Noahic flood, and the mass extinction as a result of inbreeding depression and bottlenecks just following the flood (because two of every land animal got on the boat). The article makes an attempt at NPOV, but I still think it's a bit pro. That's really tough to call on something like this, though, because it's hard to find someone without an opinion on the initial topic. --Aranae 09:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Better suited as a sub-section of creationism. Creationism will benefit from a discussion on its relation to science and how it has tried to bring about a neologism to fight back the attacks from the scientific community. Askewmind | (Talk) 09:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree with LexCorp in that this is merely a propaganda article that furthers the agenda of Creationists. We need to protect Wikipedia against this sort of action if we are to survive as an encyclopedia. Esher
• User's only edits are to his user page and this vfd. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the article on creation science (although I'd love to delete creation science itself as a bunch of anti-scientific drivel). Average Earthman 09:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as a substantial section of a political and social movement. We have an article on the United States Democratic Party, but we also have articles on factions within that party (for example, the War Democrats versus the Copperheads during the United States Civil War). We have an article on Christianity, but we also have articles on Anglicanism and Catholicism. Just because the subject is bunk doesn't mean we can't write about it in an NPOV manner. It's bunk endorsed by a lot of influential people, and has significant impact on politics and society. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Title is an inherent contradiction. Merge with creationism if any content is salvageable. This topic is totally overrepresented on the English Wikipedia anyway. Martg76 20:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Articles should never be deleted just because we don't agree with the concept they concern. And how can a topic be "overrepresented"? Write the other stuff needed to balance it! Dr Zen 03:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This movement has had social impact and should not be brushed under the rug .. despite the fact I think the beliefs are ... hogwash is still a word, right? As Dr. Zen said "Articles should never (my emphasis) be deleted just because we don't agree with the concept." That should be written into policy somewhere, carved into stone, etc. Courtland 04:46, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• strong Keep. While as a Christian and a science fan, I disagree with Creation science, it's a major, major topic. 186,000 Google hits! I could ask most knowledgable people what this was, and they'd know. There've been articles in the mainstream media describing this movement. Compared with some of the minor topics we have, this is vastly important. It's a different thing than creationism, and definitely long enough to be it's own article. Yes, it's an oxymoron: that's established in the second paragraph. It's not propoganda: there's a pretty major section of criticism. It should probably also have some refinement, and a note on Christian criticism of the whole idea, but it definitely should be kept. -LtNOWIS 16:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Creationism. Gazpacho 18:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We should have a decent article on this. (We probably won't, but we should.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real phenomenon. Every bit as valid a topic as Christian Science (and equally scientific) (<--- note: last previous parenthetical remark is ironic). "We live on the inside of a hollow earth" is unencyclopedic. "John Cleves Symmes Jr said we live on the inside of a hollow earth is encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are a lot of pages describing different aspects of creationist thinking on Wikipedia, and however weird some of it is, lumping it all in one article will not made it go away. --Henrygb 20:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Creation science" is one type of Creationism, and the reasons cited for nominating it seem to purposefully misinterpret VfD criteria. As it stands, the article could use some NPOV editing, but that's not criteria for deletion by itself. An article on the development of "Creation science" and "Scientific Creationism" as a strategy in the evolution/creationism debate could be quite interesting (I am sure that Ronald L. Number's The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, Harvard University Press, 1992, would be invaluable in this). --Fastfission 23:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. TIMBO (T A L K) 06:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A reason would be nice. The discussion is more important than the vote count. Even saying "for reasons given by so-and-so" is helpful. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Creationism, for the reasons given by Askewmind and LexCorp. --Plainsong 18:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Creationism for the reasons given above. --Axon 18:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - the Creationism article is already over 32K. Although an opponent of creationism, I think that Creation Science deserves an article as much as Intelligent Design or any of the other flavours of creationism. Guettarda 00:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote tally

Keep: 23

Merge: 10

Delete: 1

Uncertain: 2. I'm not certain how to interpret BM's vote - Merge or Keep? Is Guettarda's comment a vote?

Huge victory for Keep, I concede defeat and will remove the notice from the page. --Spazzm 02:15, 2005 Mar 15 (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.