Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchard Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Creationist Orchard

Creationist Orchard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Has two links, and no cites, neither link actually calls it an Orchard theory - they just mention it metaphorically in passing once. Facts themselves seem very dubious; sources are ones widely agreed as untrustworthy. Theory seems completely non-notable, and, at best, might be suitable for merger into Baraminology. Adam Cuerden talk 22:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Note:Pbarnes moved the page to Orchard theory and removed the Afd notice (which has since been reinistated). Guettarda 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: Further moved by him to Creationist Orchard (209 ghits, but only 46 shown if you do not turn off the "very similar to those shown" option.) 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. --Davril2020 22:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the term "Orchard Theory" only gets 33 ghits (33!) and most of those relate to arboreal agriculture, not Evolution. This is clearly original research, and not even in common usage enough to be a neologism. Doc Tropics 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Can't this be closed yet? It has been 6 days already! I've seen other Afd that only lasted a few days. There are about 14 Deletes, a couple of redirects, and 1 keep (the author). Enough already. Nashville Monkey 20:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Baraminology which seems to make the most sense. Both the nom and Doc Tropics raise serious issues. Note also that parts of the article also seem to have serious POV issues. JoshuaZ 23:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --as theories go, this is minimal, but it does fit into Baraminology, a term-- though not a concept --that is new to me. I appreciate the entertainment.DGG 23:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - "orchard theory" and "evolution" only gets two hits, one of which is unrelated to this subject. Neither of the links actually speaks of "orchard theory". While the idea exists (and is pre-Darwinian), I see no evidence that there is any such thing as "orchard theory". Guettarda 23:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Unless someone can offer an alternate term for the belief that life was created in various kinds and then evolved into the various species we see today then I feel the term "orchard theory" is sufficient because it is a metaphor understood by most people. This is a popular belief amongst creationist and I feel it needs a page devoted to it. Pbarnes 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment We already have an article on Baraminology and whether or not this a popular belief isn't relevant if the term is a neologism. Even if there were no good term for it in English it would not be Wikipedia's job to make one up or use a rare one. JoshuaZ 00:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Baraminology is an article for the study of created kinds. I think we need an separate article for the belief in created kinds that can easily be referenced.
  • Delete complete neologism; Google doesn't know the first thing about this term used in this way, so no need for a redirect. The article is also full of laughable factual inaccuracies. Opabinia regalis 00:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a mess JPotter 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Horizontal gene transfer. WAS 4.250 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Um, I fail to see the connection. JoshuaZ 01:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: What would it take for this to not be considered neologism? Pbarnes 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reliable and verifiable sources showing it is an established, well-known, and well-defined term. --Davril2020 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
And how many sources would that take? I learned this through my Animal Biology professor and I going to talk to him tomorrow to get some sources. I'm going to assume that "established, well-known, and well-defined term" simply means it is the most common term for it's definition no matter how obscure it's definition might be. Is this correct? Would "creationist orchard" be a more fitting term? Google: Creationist Orchard It is also referred to as a creationist forest. Pbarnes 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, you may want to see WP:N. The real issue is whether there are independent reliable sources. JoshuaZ 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
"Regarding the creationist orchard...sometimes also called the creationist forest... That came from Kurt Wise and the bariminolog study group. I have seen this model used by some ID folks as well." Dr Fulcher, Director of Biology, PLNU...So is Kurt Wise, "some ID folks", and a director of biology at a university still not enough? Pbarnes 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The other criteria for referrences is that they must be verifiable. Doc Tropics 02:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I realize that, but why should I go find reference it's still not enough to prove that this term is real. Is this enough? Pbarnes 02:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: No verifiable sources gives for this very grand assertion.--Roland Deschain 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable and original research. Seraphimblade 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:V, WP:OR. Terence Ong 11:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This seems to me to be a minor variation on creationism. --Regebro 16:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, NO move to "creationist orchard" or any other neologistic title. Utter nonsense, promoted by a very very (can we cay vanishingly?) small segment of the the creationist population. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Creationist Orchard to baraminology or (if that doesn't survive its AfD) creation biology. There's nothing salvageable to merge (it consists of a dictionary definition and a great deal of OR), but it's reasonable someone might use it as a search term, hence the redirect. Delete Orchard theory as a neologism based on other editors' Google search results. --Ginkgo100 talk 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Take the article out and shoot it. •Jim62sch• 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This survey has was taken for a very different article then what appears today. The name has changed and can no longer be considered neologism. Please voice new opinions in the following survey.

[edit] Survey for 12/5
  • Keep - Moving this article along with other articles such as fixity of the species and baraminology to more general pages such as creation biology or created kinds will lead to bloating articles that are to general to be of much use. By keeping the articles, the information will be able to best suit the purpose of the article, which is to dispel the ideas that fixity of the species and created kinds are synonymous and that creationist orchard is a legitimate belief that adequately explains all the evidence of evolution. Pbarnes 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, this article is brand new. It can definitely expand and I'm working towards that. Keep that in mind in your decision making. Pbarnes 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You have made substantial additions to the article, but it's still not an encyclopaedic topic, so nothing has really changed. Guettarda 05:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution Proposal

I suggest moving the page to creationist orchard. The google test gives roughly 68 instances where the phrase is used in the correct context. 1 An article like this is needed in order to make easy references to this belief system much the same way as universal common descent and fixity of the species have an article. Creationist orchard or the orchard theory are the most commonly used names I could think of but other ideas are welcomed. As far as I know, this terminology started with Kurt Wise, but I have heard it many times amongst various intelligent design supporters and also from various professors at my university specifically. The last thing that should happen is a redirect to baraminology. Baraminology is the study of "created kinds" not the belief system itself. It is completely unrelated to the attempted purpose of this article. Pbarnes 08:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, in all honesty, it would be better merged into Baraminology: 63 google hits isn't very good, and well, it seems a minor apologetic explanation of that concept more than a widespread belief. Adam Cuerden talk 09:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think, in all honestly, it would be better merged into Creationism. ;) And that merge would be extremely quick, because in fact, this belief system is already covered by the article, although the word "orchard" isn't mentioned. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't, but it clearly doesn't need it's own article. --Regebro 16:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is referencing. People can reference universal common descent and fixity of the species why can't they reference the alternative belief system? Creationism is too broad of an article and Baraminology is to unrelated to be a good reference article. I'm going to add to this article today (while at work). Let me edit it a bit and propose the name change and then you can tell me what you think. Pbarnes 18:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Universal Common Descent is a widely-held, scientifically supported theory. This seems to be a very minor apologetic concept. What articles, exactly, would benefit from referencing it? As well, I can't see how it differs significantly from Baraminology, itself only a borderline topic. Adam Cuerden talk 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Reference could be made for anything related to creationism. For example: evolution-creation controversy, YEC, progressive creationism, gap creationism... That is after all what the majority of creationist believe. Pbarnes 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

UUm, you haven't actually shown a majority of creationists believe it. I've heard the "Kinds" thing, which is Baraminology, but not that. Adam Cuerden talk 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What are the majority of creationists? There is Answers in Genesis, Kent Hovind, and Truth in Science. What more do you want? Try [this article].

Textbooks often teach that people who do not believe in molecules-to-man evolution believe in the fixity of species. This is the idea that all modern species were created, have never changed, and are not capable of change....This view is not held today by any creationist group, and even before Darwin it was by no means universally held. Indeed, Darwin's botany tutor, John. S. Henslow (1796-1851), believed that there was considerable diversity within the kinds of organism which God created. By contrasting molecules-to-man evolution with a view of species fixity which is impossible to hold scientifically, textbooks misrepresent the choice faced by pupils in their beliefs about their own origins.

. Pbarnes 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. AiG, Hovind, etc don't represent "the majority" of creationists - they are a minority extremist fringe.
  2. "Textbooks teach..."? What textbooks in what subject talk about creationists? Guettarda 02:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, Hovind is a minority extremist but isn't AIG the mainstream of the YEC? JoshuaZ 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
For one, he said "creationist", not YEC. And I believe that most people who believe that most of the people who believe that the earth is "young" have probably not heard of AiG (or the internet). Guettarda 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

...The fact that you're unable to find another cite that even mentions the term "orchard" leads me to believe all the more this should come under Baraminology or a footnote in Created kind. Frankly, your efforts to improve these pages seem to be making them worse. Adam Cuerden talk 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean like:
Shall I continue... Pbarnes 04:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The term "Orchard Theory" seems to have zero use outside of this Wikipedia article. The references talk about "creationist orchard". The point of view that is described in the article is already described both in Baraminology and Creationism. Why would a merge or anything be needed? Just delete it. --Regebro 18:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you even see the links I posted just above you? Those are THREE...not zero...uses for the term "orchard theory". Not to mention everything from answersingenesis.com. Although the term may not be very popular, the belief which is given by the definition of orchard theory is very popular. Pbarnes 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is, and that belief is already covered in several articles, with more commonly used names, and therefore this article should be deleted. --Regebro 06:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Pbarnes 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why we have an article on Created kind. Adam Cuerden talk 22:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Discussion

I edited quite a bit of the article as well as changed the name. In an attempt to prevent biases, which would come from previous opinions of the old article, I have started this section. This is a new proposal for deletion since many things are no longer the same on the article such as unreferenced material or giving undue weight to the belief by calling it a 'theory'. For those unfamiliar with the creationist orchard' it is commonly used is answeringenesis.com articles and also made it's appearance the in the Journal of Creation and on the truthinscience.co.uk website. Furthermore, it was mentioned in the creation biology article by someone other than myself. The point is not to define the term but to dispel the misconceptions about the belief and to point out it's many pseudoscience aspects. All though the term "creationist orchard" is relatively uncommon (about 209 ghits) the belief is very common. Rather than adding to the generality of the creationism article I want to get into the specifics that way creationist can really understand why there beliefs are just religious dogma and not theories. Note: I did not call for a deletion survey, but since it was already in place prior to the editing, I guess it must stay. Pbarnes 23:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Better to make it a secton in the highly related "Created kind" - at best, they're related theories. Frankly, though, your attempts to justify the page have sent it further and further off the rails, though you've rescued it a little. But there's a lot of analysis that doesn't seem fuly justified.


If you think you've addressed issues, politely ask the people who voted to reconsider in the light of the revision on their talk pages. Adam Cuerden talk 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Something I plan on doing with the article is placing various sections on explaining the evidence of various fields of science. One will talk about the evidence the belief explains and in another the evidence that it doesn't explain but universal common descent does. This cannot really fit into the created kind article and again created kinds is a broader belief then this article. As pointed out in the article, many people confuse the belief in created kinds with a belief in fixity of the species. If I were to explain both fixity of the species and the creationist orchard along with sections explaining how scientific evidence fits, I'm afraid the article will be too long. Furthermore, there is a discussion that baraminology will be moved there also. In certain peoples attempt to unify these articles, they are inadvertently going to create one over sized article. Pbarnes 00:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the deletion's oing to be stoppable, but if you move a copy into your user page, it should be easy enough to then reconstruct it with the new improved article when you think you have it made safe. Adam Cuerden talk 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Adam; consider moving the article to userspace for further work. With only one solid "Keep", it probably won't be in the mainspace much longer. Doc Tropics 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've repeatedly deleted my first several responses to this without hitting the Save button. It never occured to me that checking the refs should need to be done so rigorously. Since this article will probably proceed into oblivion, I won't bother making changes to that page, but I'll certainly be looking deeper at certain other refs in various other articles. Doc Tropics 03:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
For some reason the page won't load for me. Please tell me how darwin reconciled these things. By rejecting God? Because that is exactly what I have written. I'm curious to hear what you think. To be honest I got this quote from a creationist article, assuming it was reliable (I know shame on me). But from the way I was taught in my Animal Biology class in my university, Darwin rejected his belief in God because God didn't fit in the theory of evolution like he did in the majority belief of religious people in western culture: fixity of the species. - pbarnes
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.