Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man track controversy

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 REDIRECT. Jinian 03:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Man track controversy

Man track controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a POV fork from Glen Rose Formation. The article makes crazy claims from non-scientists who are pushing a creationist agenda. I have cleaned up and sourced the claims at the proper article so there is no need for this one. PatriotBible 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, was a POV fork and should be covered in Glen Rose Formation anyway. Demiurge 11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edison 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per Nom. Non Notable Conspiracy Theory - Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, although this forked article also seems to have been cleaned up from the original. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment; included in User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep POV forks are created to support a particular POV. I don't see any POV in this article. You claim there's a creationist agenda, but the article clearly shows how the creationists believed this way then were disproved. Unless the "creationist agenda" is to show how they backtracked, I don't really see why this is nominated. .V. 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly Merge some information with related articles. This is nowhere near notable enough for its own article. The terms "Glen Rose Man" and "Man Track Controversy" together total less than 500 google results, few of which appear to be from websites or news services of note. On the other hand, I do not believe this to be a POV fork per .V.'s above comments. --Wildnox(talk) 02:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anything useful can go in the Glen Rose Formation article if it isn't already there. Vsmith 02:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Additional reason for deletion is that it's an extremly unlikely search term. Glen Rose Formation is at least a meaningful search term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge back into Glen Rose Formation, per nom. — coelacan talk — 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Glen Rose Formation. At best redundant. JoshuaZ 04:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge back into Glen Rose Formation per nom GabrielF 04:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge No need for a separate page regarding the tracks. Jinxmchue 18:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Glen Rose Formation and if there is anything worth saving move there. MichaelSH 01:31, 12 January 2007 (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.