Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth shape debate

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 DELETE. -Splash 21:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earth shape debate

Delete. Flat Earth absolutely has this covered. There is no debate and we shouldn't suggest there is. This was a good faith start-up but really it comes very close to nonsense. The arguments for a round Earth are laughably sparse here. No Eratosthenes, no Magellan, no mention of ships on the horizon, constellations changing or other intuitive tests. Marskell 09:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the constellations are mentioned, Megellan didn't prove the earth is round (his path is possible on the flat earth model) and the tests are mentioned. If you want more detail, add it. Just for the record, I don't believe in a flat earth, but your arguments in no way justify purging the page, but rather at most merging. MrVoluntarist 19:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It is rather reassuring to know that you don't believe in a flat earth, but perhaps non-belief is the problem. Hypothetically, perhaps a case could be made for a flat-earth - it is certainly a great test case for logic and epistomology. But there is no 'debate'. Who is actually debating this? Where? With whom? --Doc (?) 17:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing the epistemological problems involved in ruling out a flat earth. Many people say "obviously it's false. Anyone can just build a rocket ship and see." (And again, no, I don't think flat-earthers are right.) To answer your questions in the order they were asked, 1) members of the Flat Earth Society and various fundamentalist Christians; 2) on various internet forums; 3) pretty much anyone else, especially creationists.

• Wow, this gave me a whole new perspective - I like the bit about the 'moon rock' conspiracy. Can I add something I learned on my alien abduction that rather supports this theory? No? Well, then delete --Doc (?) 10:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I talked with the Great Turtle while sleeping last night. He confirmed that the thing resting on his back was a sphere not a flat disk. ;) Marskell 10:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and Redirect seems to me like somebody might search for the term but the topic is covered by flat earth. Bandraoi 10:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Redundant with Flat Earth (and to a lessor extent Flat Earth Society). A good rule-of-thumb is articles about theories shouldn't outnumber proponents. --rob 11:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Argument for merging, not deleting. MrVoluntarist 19:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Much ado about nothing. Vsmith 14:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 15:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge The actual points of the debate (and the debate does sometimes occur) should appear somewhere on Wikipedia. MrVoluntarist 16:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• The list is hopelessly misguided, bordering on patent nonsense. (And, for the record: "claiming that ... the Earth is round, but large enough to appear locally flat" is not a middle position, but a simple fact.) Delete, do not merge anywhere (except, perhaps, BJAODN). - Mike Rosoft 08:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Where should people learn about the arguments flat-earthers use? MrVoluntarist 19:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - it's a pretty atrocious collection of arguments, too. No reference to the millions of ships from Magellan onwards... Shimgray 01:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe I should explain somewhere why Magellan's voyage doesn't prove a round earth. Oh wait, I already did. Thanks for reading the full page before voting. MrVoluntarist 17:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't read it fully. I can't see it changing my vote, though... you know, it being mentioned twice on this page suggests that it might, just might be classed as "an argument used in the debate". (How exactly would sailing around the earth be explicable by flatness, but walking around wouldn't, anyhow?). And "for #3" is just unbelievably silly. Yes, we all claim the Earth is round because we want to disprove Scripture. Shimgray 17:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The Greeks had it nailed before Scripture was even written. Marskell 18:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Patent nonsence. The half the arguments (both for and against) aren;t even real arguments. --BadSeed 17:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's funny patent nonsense! Just look at this pro-"round" argument provided: The motion of the stars makes more sense from such a perspective. So subtle... / Peter ^Isotalo 20:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I sure hope this article was someone's idea of a joke.---CH (talk) 17:35, 11 September 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.