Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of arguments for a young Earth

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. POV fork Seddon ^talk 12:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of arguments for a young Earth

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic WP:POVFORK. Content belongs either on Young earth creationism or on Age of the Earth. jps (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (but rename to "List of arguments used by young Earth creationists" similar to a suggestion elsewhere). Young Earth creationism is a big article covering a lot of ground. It is perfectly appropriate to split off a section specifically for the geological and astronomical arguments and how they are rebutted. See Wikipedia:Splitting etc. Should have "main article" links from creation science and young earth creationism, but it arguably shouldn't even be mentioned at age of earth. On the negative side, we all know that, for obvious reasons, these kinds of articles take a lot of time and manpower to maintain in good condition. So there's something to be said for minimizing the number of articles on this topic, even if it means that some things aren't elaborated in as much detail as one might like. Therefore, if the article is deleted, I don't mind. --Steve (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nom says it's a WP:POVFORK. A blatant one violating WP:PSCI to the max. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Trim into Young Earth creationism... I assume that this spun out of that article... if so, it should be returned. In any case, the proper place to discuss what advocates of a theory say is in the article about that theory. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Merge. I don't quite get the "POV fork" argument, since all the arguments that are presented are also rebutted (if it promotes a POV in its current form, it's the mainstream one). Steve is correct that a sub-article on some aspect of YEC is legitimate if the main article grows too big, but the problem is that this is not about an aspect of YEC, it's a list of scientifically unrelated claims, jumbled up together. In any case, it should be labelled "list of would-be scientific arguments for..." or some such, since the actual main arguments used are predicated on the inerrancy of the bible, and involve the calculation of biblical chronology from the creation narrative. Paul B (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; pure creationist propaganda masquerading as an encyclopedic article. Everything listed in this list has severe logical fallacies that prevent them from being true arguments. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's not a reason to delete. The inaccuracy of the arguments is irrelevant, since the article points out that very fact. The article is about the existence of those arguments. The problem is the rag-bag nature of the content, and the fact that it would be better placed within a broader YEC article. Paul B (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rename per Steve and my earlier comments at WT:PHYSICS.T R 08:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Creationism - while some of these propositions may be notable on their own I cannot see how this list of arguments in favor of creationism is distinct from the subject of creationism. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if only because there's barely a topic here, and per WP:DIRECTORY. Our job isn't to duplicate TalkOrigins after all (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html for a very, very throughout list of arguments used by creationists). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork and per Headbomb and others doesn't seem to be an actual topic. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into Young earth creationism, does not belong on age of the earth due to WP:ONEWAY, Second Quantization (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV-fork. bobrayner (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POVFORK. SteveBaker (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Classic POV fork. Subject is not independent of and already existing article. Frankly, I don't see anything worth saving or merging. It's just a laundry list of notable and not notable arguments, and the notable ones are already mentioned in the other article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename. Notable (there are many articles on this subject), NPOV, and well-referenced article. Ma^t_chups 02:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.