Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Science|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Science

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Thompson

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

Minor ISKCON creationist who published some books, but not enough to be notable via WP:AUTHOR and isn't otherwise notable for WP:BIO. jps (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 101.117.1.194 (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 101.117.1.194 (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage in WP:RS, and according to sources (both in the article and found on searching) the main figure articulating Hare Krishna views of science. Passes WP:GNG. -- 101.117.1.194 (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was kept at the previous AfD on 21 October 2011. -- 101.117.1.194 (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I said it in 2011 and I still feel the same way: I consider his views to be hogwash, but he was notable. Sources in the article demonstrate that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen328. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:06, 6 May 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.

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yeong-duk

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

Procedural AfD, since the article was PRODed and contested. I am somewhat neutral on notability. He could maybe satisfy WP:PROF C6, if the Institute for Basic Science is deemed a "major academic institution". Due to the inconsistent way citation databases treat Korean names, finding a citation track record is very hard. What worries me is that some of the claims to fame previously listed in the article appear to have been blatantly false.T R 12:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC) T R 12:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Difficult, as one doesn't know what name he published under and cites can be assessed. Until then Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Searching finds no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Negligible citations and nothing else notable. -- 101.117.89.99 (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has some quite highly cited papers (e.g. 854 Google scholar cites for "Observation of reactor electron antineutrinos disappearance in the RENO experiment", 203 for "Limits on WIMP-nucleon interactions with CsI(Tl) crystal detectors", and 186 for "The MSU Miniball 4π fragment detection array") but these are articles with many researchers (34, 28, and 14 respectively) and his name appears in a non-distinguished place in them, so it is difficult to tell how much if any impact we can credit him with. The only high-impact citation with him as first author that I found was 147 cites for "Intermediate mass fragment emission in Ar 36+ 197 Au collisions at E/A= 35 MeV". I don't think that's enough to make a clear case for WP:PROF#C1 and I don't see another notability criterion for him to pass in its place. But there are a lot of papers by "Y.D. Kim" only some of which are his so I could easily have missed some in my search. In any case we need enough sources about the subject but not by him to form the basis of an encyclopedia article, and I don't see those either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems to be failing WP:PROF, no-one is able to argue otherwise so far.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 18 May 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.

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 Speedy deleted per G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement. The infringement dates back to the very beginning of the article, and it was previously deleted in 2006 for the same reason. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Giordano

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

Fails WP:NOTEBLP and WP:ACADEMIC Cwobeel (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 20 papers in GS with over 200 citations give a very clear pass of WP:Prof#C1, but puffery needs much pruning. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep. That's 20 papers in GS with over 200 citations each. A very clear pass of WP:Prof#C1, as Xxanthippe says, and a complete failure of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nom. -- 101.117.89.99 (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying what I meant to say. I second your sentiments. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1. But it looks like much of the text of the article was copied or closely paraphrased from this source; it may need to be stubbed down. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 4 May 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.

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Govinda Poudel

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

While being a doctor is notable to many, not quite for Wikipedia, the links are basically for resumes for this guy and it basically looks like a classic advertisement when it is all said and done. Wgolf (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Now I do see he has written some stuff-but as another article came up saying that was under an afd that was similar (actually it had a lot more info even) it is not considered notable still. Wgolf (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far too little impact on literature yet. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. An h-index of only 6. Much too early. -- 101.117.89.120 (talk) 04:21, 1 May 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.

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 Keep for Whale watching in Australia and Whale watching in New Zealand. The result was Delete for the remaining copypaste creations. (Note that all copypasting even -- even from within Wikipedia -- requires proper attribution per WP:CWW otherwise it is a copyright violation.) I suggest that any further discussion about Whale watching and the kept sub-articles should be done on a case-by-case basis. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whale watching in Brazil

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

This article is a copy of Whale watching, and does not improve upon the content. I am also nominating the following articles:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Whale Watching article, all under their own sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staglit (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the above articles have been simply copy pasted from Whale watching, so there is nothing new in the above 11 articles, so merging won't do anything. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. No valid deletion criterion has been presented, and Whale watching is certainly notable. Even whale watching in some specific countries is notable, as a Google Books search shows. Some of these articles should probably be merged back into Whale Watching, but a bulk AfD is not the place for such a merge discussion. -- 101.117.29.29 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not notable in their own right, see WP:GNG. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of them are, as a Google Books search shows. -- 101.117.29.29 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whale watching in New Zealand is certainly notable, and I have just expanded the article to make it more encyclopaedic. One of the senior NZ admins had already rated the article for Wikiproject New Zealand and has given it mid-importance, which further demonstrates the point. I have no opinion or knowledge about notability of other country articles. Schwede 66 20:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bduke (Discussion) 22:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bduke (Discussion) 22:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the material should be merged back into Whale watching, but the specific details of places would be more appropriate on WikiTravel. The article there on Whale watching needs work and will be deleted at the end of 2014 if not rescued, but that could be done with some of this material. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query Given that you have commented after my keep vote, where I maintain that Whale watching in New Zealand is notable, could you please clarify / confirm that you have actually looked at the NZ entry, and that your global delete vote is supposed to apply to the NZ entry as well? Schwede 66 00:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the NZ article and I have looked again at it. It still think it is WikiTravel material. A link to there could be on Whale watching. WMF has many projects. Not everything fits wikipedia. Some stuff should be on other projects. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering the fact that only the NZ article has been improved, and all the other ten were and are simply copy pastes from Whale watching, only the the NZ article may be considered for keeping. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 07:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. The fact that the NZ article has been improved shows that the nom did not do a proper WP:BEFORE check and that this whole blanket nomination is flawed. -- 101.117.108.195 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with that comment. Either an article is notable, or it is not. That's independent to whether somebody improves an article. What an improvement may do is to show notability more clearly, but it doesn't establish notability in the first instance. Schwede 66 23:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AfD is not a place to cleanup and wikipedia is not a place to keep multiple copies of insignificant articles. The eleven articles were simply copy pastes from Whale watching created without discussion, rationale for keeping indipendent articles, or evidence of notability. A google search results in mostly links to tourism websites which is not an indication for notability and a google books search results in one on Australia and New Zealand only, which I don't know whether it makes the subject notable or reliaible. But an editor experienced in the field may come out with some other obscure, but notable sources, which is not possible for an editor like me who is not an expert in the field. Atleast, we can initiate a discussion, which may bring the articles in question to the attention of intrested editors. And this is the place to discuss whether or not an article is worth keeping. Now the above comment was made by me to stress the point that may be the NZ article should be looked into separately since the article has been significantly expanded since the initiation of the deletion disscussion and the others are copy pastes. By looking just at the google search results, it is not possible to judge a subject's notability. Cheers! -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 10:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Whale watching in New Zealand with the article on Kaikoura. I don't think the article is sufficiently notable to stand alone, but it is appropriate within the Kaikoura article. NealeFamily (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Whale watching in New Zealand with the article on Kaikoura. Improved article, yes but says little about whale watching and more about Kaikoura.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NealeFamily and Egghead06, please note that I have further expanded the article, and broadened it in its geographic scope away from the rather dominant Kaikoura. Feel free to review the amended article and reconsider your vote if appropriate. Schwede 66 04:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have considerable doubt as to why Whale Watching is worthy of an article in Wiki. Essentially it is a tourist activity associated with particular localities of which there is a present only one in NZ, Kaikoura. I could see some merit of having a general article about human interaction with either the coastal maritime environment or whales in a more general sense. Are we heading down the lines of Bird watching in New Zealand, Possum shooting in New Zealand, etc? NealeFamily (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whale watching in New Zealand is certainly notable as is Whale watching in Australia which I have edited and added references to make it more encyclopaedic. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Whale watching in New Zealand and Whale watching in Australia as they are sourced and notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:00, 5 May 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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current Research In Drug Discovery (Journal)

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

Non-notable new journal published by "Science Publications" (listed on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory OA publishers). Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the journal itself is not on the Beall's list anyway, in my opinion, you cannot judge the journal in this simple way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giancarlobasile (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even disregarding the fact that this is a journal published by a shady publisher at best, there is not a shred of evidence that this meets our notability criteria (or ever will). That you are willing to tie your name and reputation to this kind of stuff is your responsibility. What we list in WP or not is the community's. --Randykitty (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I share your point of view we will post again when suitable references will be available, please delete

Delete as advertising. Bakerstmd (talk) 18:40, 29 April 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.

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. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Jiang

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

Biography of a non-notable academic. The article reads like a résumé and indeed the only cited source is the subject's résumé. He does not meet WP:GNG and though he has some awards I do not believe they are big enough, or that he has made sufficient impact, for him to qualify under WP:PROF. BethNaught (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it indeed reads like a resume and is cited to his resume. He's a Senior member of the IEEE but not a Fellow, so falls (just) short of meeting WP:PROF notability criteria. But he's obviously a possibility for Fellowship in the future. Not notable yet. Sionk (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete there are some high cites on Google scholar for Ming Jiang, but I'm not sure that it is right person. Would the nominator like to come up with an h-index? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I think this is a reasonably accurate search. It at least seems to cut out all the other Ming Jiangs but I suspect it misses some of his publications. Anyway, it gets citation numbers (in some strange unsorted order) of 252, 226, 70, 46, 44, 43, 39, 29, 24, 24, ... and an h-index of 12. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That would be a reasonably good index for a pure mathematician. I am not so sure in computer mathematics. Too early? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Just to reiterate an obvious point: it's irrelevant what his h-index is if there are no independent reliable sources. We just cannot write a verifiable article without them, however much we might want to. This is of course particularly important for a living person. Deltahedron (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Comment~~ Chinese Wikipedia doesn't mention him. He has an entry on Baidu but that fails WP:RS. There is a lengthy quote from him at the Microsoft China Research website here but nothing else notable that jumps out from a Chinese Google search. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. So far I don't find the evidence for WP:PROF convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheMesquito^buzz 01:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable person. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- 101.117.109.221 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 28 April 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.

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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McIntosh (professor)

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

This article is basically a WP:COATRACK off the back of WP:BLP1E. The subject is a creationist, admittedly a rare breed in the United Kingdom. The sole claim to actual notability is nothing to do with the majority of the article, but is a minor award given to the group he leads. The cited source discussing this, namechecks him in the final sentence. His principal claim to fame is being a director of "Truth" in Science, a fringe and very very minor creationist group which his institution firmly repudiates, and he is the only one of the people listed in the article on that group for whom we have an article. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He certainly isn't famous for WP:PROF standards that I can see. The argument that he is notable for his peculiar religious claims may be stronger, but I don't think such an argument is particularly compelling per WP:BLPFRINGE. jps (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I am more hesitant than usual to !vote this way, as he appears to have gained some attention from the news media. However, I don't think this coverage passes the WP:PROF criteria, and is not extensive enough to get him past WP:GNG. If McIntosh receives further news coverage in future years, I can see him passing the notability threshold, but not now. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think, under WP:PROF Criterion 5 - a professor in the UK is pretty much automatically notable. Also, creationists in this sort of position in the UK are so rare that that on its own is probably good enough. Eustachiusz (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:PROF criterion 5 as his professorship is not significant or notable. It is certainly not true that any UK professor is notable. Religious minorities are not per se notable. The one important thing, the award his team received, is not specific to him and not a scholarly prize, but from Times Higher Education. Thus he fails WP:BLP1E as well. BethNaught (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to get plenty of coverage for his views from the British Centre for Science Education, Dawkins, the BBC, &c. Andrew (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fact that he is English, and there are not many English creationists, is hardly a claim to fame. I find that argument absurd. On a global scale, he is a fourth or fifth tier creationist, very far from a leading figure in the movement, except perhaps on a limited local scale, which would be all the more insignificant as creationism is a tiny movement in England. Not enough in the way of substantial feature coverage for his activities as a creationist in reliable independent secondary sources. As far as his career as a professor goes, it looks solid, but rather run of the mill. Rather unspectacular, in fact, with minimal coverage in news sources, largely limited to a single rather unspectacular award from a non-scientific body, of which he was not the sole recipient. Therefore fails both WP:PROF and WP:BLP1E. I find the argument that "a professor in the UK is pretty much automatically notable" absurd as well. That is not in accordance with WP:PROF or any other guidelines. Nothing worth saving here or merging elsewhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 101.117.56.15 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 101.117.56.15 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C1 with an h-index of at least 20 (searching for "AC McIntosh" and manually removing the papers that are not his). The article should probably be reworded to focus more on his mainstream engineering work. -- 101.117.56.15 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Those editors saying "a professor in the UK is pretty much automatically notable" are appealing to WP:PROF#C5. In the UK, an ordinary "professor" is called a "lecturer" or "senior lecturer," and the "Professor" title is reserved for what in the US would be called "Distinguished Professor" or "Head of Department." Therefore, they are suggesting, WP:PROF#C5 apples. -- 101.117.56.15 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a top-tier leader of the creationist movement, as you can see from Answers in Genesis. He has six mentions in the Highbeam news archive and 19 on GBooks. He is "the leading scientific proponent of IDT in the UK," according to Science vs. Religion by Steven Fuller. Guelf (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A web of science h-index of at least 17 just gives a pass of WP:Prof#C1 in the relatively low cited field of combustion science. His religious activities pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe et al. St Anselm (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Sufficiently notable to just pass WP:PROF without the creationism. It's debatable whether a genuine orthodox scientist in his own field being a creationist makes them more notable, but it might. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 4 May 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.

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. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. JohnCD (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petition for Briggs for Cancer Immunotherapy for All

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

While I support advocacies like this, there is not enough coverage for this in reliable sources. Only source given is Change.org and an endorsment. Having notable signers is not necessarily a claim to notability. PROD was removed by author. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as borderline soapboxing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising for a change.org petition which has had no media coverage and is not notable. -- 101.117.3.144 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update Hi. I'm not used to using the talk page. I appreciate the note about supporting advocacies like this. I thought from the instructions that it would be okay to remove the PROD because of the paragraph I added about the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. I've now added a further paragraph about an article amplifying the issues in the petition that was published in the Medical Journal of Australia's MJA InSight newsletter. The petition is linked in the author bio at the end of the article. Thanks for making this article better.TheKwais (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sanderson is notable, and we have an article about him. Cancer immunotherapy is notable, and we have an article about it. This petition is not notable, and Paul Sanderson's newletter article does not contribute to making it so, since that article is not independent/3rd-party. -- 101.117.110.186 (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no demonstrated notability . Adding the material on the Society does not help the situation. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer might however be notable, including a redirect from the name of its journal. The society however did not originate the petition, but is merely supporting it, so I am not even sure that a mention of the petition would be appropriate there any more than its other supporters.. The policy is NOT ADVOCACY, ait applies to links as well as articles, and it applies even to the best causes. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 3 May 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.

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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Engel (mathematician)

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

No indication of why he's notable, no reliable biographical sources supporting notability. Even the minimal facts in the article aren't given in the sources but inferred: he's listed as the author of a maths book so is a mathematician; his address is listed at a university so he must have taught there. No actual biographical sources; if he were notable then someone should have written about him. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He seems to be notable, but more needs to be done when it comes to sources. However, this article was only created 3 days ago, and the Maths Wikiproject were contacted yesterday - I think it's too early for AfD. Boleyn (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why so anxious to write this article if there is such difficulty in finding sources — and why so sure he would be notable? In any case, we need sources not to satisfy some arbitrary rule called notability, but so that we can write a verifiable article. If there are no sources then there is nothing that we can say about him, and there cannot be an article. Deltahedron (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If more work needs to be done it can be userfied. That's what I've done when writing articles, started writing them as userspace drafts and only moved them to mainspace when I think they're finished, which includes fully sourced. It's also worth noting the criteria for biographies of living persons is much stricter; everything needs properly sourcing and unsourced content can be removed and deleted. Then again it's not even clear if this applies, whether he's still alive – with no dates for birth, death, his own (presumed) PhD it's impossible even to guess.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he is still alive. He was born in 1928 and his university website lists him as Ehemalig. See also viaf.org/viaf/161228347. Deltahedron (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I see you've added a potted bio to the talk page, thanks. The birth date is most useful, gives a much better idea of when his career probably was, though it if anything muddies the BLP issue: it could easily be either. Probably he's still alive or it would surely be possible to find an obituary. I found the David Hilbert medal when searching for sources, but he didn't win the full medal:

It should be noted that 1991 Awards under the name of David Hilbert were presented on the basis of quite different criteria, that of having written the most interesting articles written in the previous years' volumes of the WFNMC Journal "Mathematics Competitions".

[1]

The Order of Merit seems like quite a common award: the article lists it as being awarded to 200,000 people since 1951.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the back cover of one of his books, [2], it looks like the same one the potted bio was based on. I think the bio includes the main points but the extra detail may be useful for e.g. initiating further searches.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there's another Engel who was involved in IMO competitions, Wolfgang Engel, also born in Germany in 1928, died 2010. Here he is writing about Arthur Engel: [3].--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching finds no evidence that he passes WP:PROF, and (as noted above) the award is given too frequently to confer notability. -- 101.117.3.144 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Probably notable as an author of textbooks, some of which which were translated into several languages (French, Polish, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish). Not easy to find anything on him, though. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Mathematics is in general a low-citation subject but what little I can find looks more pedagogical than research-oriented, so research impact (criterion #1) looks unlikely. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the Federal Cross of Merit is awarded in a number of different grades. We need to know what grade he got, as the higher grades (probably Commander and above) will attest to his notability under criterion #1 of WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a fair assumption he has one of the lowest/commonest grades. Not only is this statistically most likely but the information's from a promotional blurb, which I think would mention it if he obtained an especially high and prestigious variety of award.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. According to German Wikipedia, he received the Verdienstkreuz am Bande, the second-lowest grade, well below the threshold for notability under WP:ANYBIO. Under the British Honours System, we have always considered a CBE as the lowest grade to meet criterion #1. I would say this one equates approximately to an MBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks acceptable to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a partial bibliography. The subject has done original work on Markov chains, but is primarily notable as a prolific author of textbooks. The number of books with reputable publishers, and the fact they have been translated into various other languages, shows clear notability as an author. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no evidence in the world to support the idea that he is not notable, which is the way I choose to interpret these particular "rules" (and every "rule" there is) in case of doubt. An author being translated to foreign languages is decidedly not not notable because somebody noted him and it was believed economically sound to proceed with a translation. YohanN7 (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an expert in mathematical education and the author of widely used textbooks. For an academic, the awards are significant recognition--they never do get the higher ranks of general national awards , which are almost exclusively for industrialists, politicians, and bureaucrats. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 3 May 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.

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOS Marine Forensics Program

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

Doubtful notability. POV article created by an editor blocked for POV editing John from Idegon (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the "references" cited do not appear to even mention the subject of the article; they only appear to be tangentially related. No !vote yet, but this might actually be a WP:COATRACK on the hunting of marine species. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixable This is a copy of the program site, which is Public Domain as a US government site. But it still was written in the promotional manner of any web site for any program or organization. I think it can be rewritten, and the program is sufficiently notable for the purpose. As its resultsare used in enforcement, there should be sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-someone can fix this easily as said above, nothing wrong with having this page though. Wgolf (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Marine forensics. Maybe it can be fixed (although I can find little aside from the program's own home page), but a merged article would cover the subject better. NOAA has two forensics programs, the other being in the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, and much that can be said of one can be said of both. At the same time, Marine forensics is in poor shape and the material from this page would help a lot. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:27, 16 May 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.

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 keep. Although participation was limited, there seems to be wide (if not unanimous) agreement that the sources found by User:Spinningspark demonstrate notability. Merge or rename discussions can of course continue to occur on the article's talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic gravitational wave interferometric sensor

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

The article is too short and based on an old source. It's unclear whether the subject is notable, since it's nothing more than a proposed method Fedor Babkin (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get 46 hits in Scholar which is astonishing for such a long technical phrase (in quotes). The cited paper may be old (2008), but the method was proposed again in 2011 by a slightly different set of authors [4] and by a completely different set [5]. The literature was reviewed in Physical Review D [6], and in short seems to be an active area of research. It is still current, I can see papers published in 2013 [7][8][9], this one [10] claims to have actually measured something, and from 2014 there is this ArXiv submission and something in Italian that appears to be relevant. Spinning Spark 18:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this book has a whole chapter on the subject. Spinning Spark 19:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of sources found by Spinningspark. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 12:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm surprised it was felt necessary to relist this. Just to add to the sources, there is this document and this slide show from the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. Spinning Spark
Consensus means people agreeing on something; 2 against 1 is not a consensus regardless of the strength of the arguments. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been kept; WP:VOTE values strength of argument over strength of numbers. Sadly, closers feel the need to pad such closings with reams of rules, and so most simply do not have the time. Anarchangel (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that if not enough eyes have seen the discussion, then we cannot be confident in the result. For a lightly attended AfD, the benefits of relisting outweigh any harm that may result. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After a week of discussion still a one liner article with an obsolete source. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is beside the point as far as the deletion discussion is concerned. If a topic can be shown to be notable we keep the article and wait for it to be improved by someone interested. We only delete notable topics in extreme cases such as copyright violation, blatant advertising, or BLP violation. Even then, we might keep it if there is anything useful left after stripping out the unpermitted material. Spinning Spark 11:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody is able show the notability in the article itself, that's it. The links you suggest show the notablity of the method of atomic interferometry for gravity waves detection in general, but not of that particular type of sensor, unless it is proven otherwise in the article. Be careful with "this book", it's just a Ph.D. thesis. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not so. Four of the links on scholar [11][12][13][14] have Atomic gravitational wave interferometric sensor in the title of the paper. Many more have substantial discussion of the term in the text body. Are you claiming these are all describing fundamentally different methods? I don't think so. As for the book, Ph.D theses are considered notable here since they have been through review and are considered part of the scholarly corpus. Spinning Spark 13:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why this discussion is already 100 times larger than the article itself? If you see these links as relevant (I don't, because they show that this type of sensor has not yet been built and that competing schemes are more successful to get funds), try to improve the article. Then I will immediately revoke this nomination. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely irrelevant that the technique has not actually been used, that there are better funded techniques, or even if it doesn't work at all. The only thing that matters at RFD is that reliable sources are talking about it. Please don't quote WP:FIXIT at me, it is also highly irrelevant whether or not I am prepared to work on the article. ...and the reason this is a 100 times longer than the article is because you keep disputing with me -:) Spinning Spark 15:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gravitational-wave detector#Interferometers. Although Spinningspark has done a great job finding sources, this method is still pretty much in the proposal stage. The section on interferometers would provide context and would serve the subject better than a stand-alone article for now. The method could also be mentioned in atom interferometer. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:51, 8 May 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.

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 No consensus. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creationist cosmologies

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

WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE violation. There are creationists who deal with the implications from physical cosmology in a variety of ways. Some flatly deny that the science is settled. Some try to use some of the trappings of science to produce ideas they think accord with their literal interpretation of the Bible. Others seem content to pick and choose what they want to accept from the scientific explanations of certain subjects and what they will reject. I believe that all of these approaches are best described, when WP:PROMINENT enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, on pages either devoted to explaining the ideas of particularly notable individuals or on pages such as creationism, creation science, and so forth. However, this amalgamation is essentially an originally researched treatise slapping together a lot of disparate ideas in one spot, something that we are explicitly forbidden from doing. Trying to outline the "varieties" or "tenets (sic)" of creationism in general let alone creationist approaches to cosmology in particular is the job for someone who is either giving a sermon or writing an academic dissertation about pseudoscientific beliefs: it is not appropriate for Wikipedia which is supposed to rely on reliable sources that make the points of analysis and connection themselves rather than allowing for Wikipedians to connect the dots in novel ways. jps (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally focussed on Young Earth Creationist theories of cosmology. In my opinion it was a better quality article at that time and did not suffer from many of the problems listed above (particularly WP:SYNTH). I think that an article on this topic is appropriate -- pseudoscience doesn't equal fringe especially if there is a large subculture of people who subscribe to it. (Cf. the article about flood geology). So I would advocate keep and improve not delete. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike flood geology which can be identified as the revival of a defunct set of explanations by George McCready Price and Henry M. Morris to promote creationism, there is no coherent movement associated with "creationist cosmologies", nor is there any reason to preference young earth creationist ideas over those of old earth creationists such as Hugh Ross or accommodationists who try to steer clear of the pseudoscience being promoted by their fellow creationists. There are individuals who argue for their own pet ideas, but we aren't empowered at this website to create a clearinghouse for such. We have biography pages for such. jps (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 101.117.89.139 (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This may be WP:FRINGE, but it's spectacularly notable. There is no shortage of critical sources. In fact WP:NFRINGE specifically mentions "Creation science" topics as examples of notable topics. Also, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. -- 101.117.30.180 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC) — 101.117.30.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This is not "creation science". This is an article solely on a few ideas some non-cosmologists made up one day that they called "cosmologies". jps (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're kidding, right? The article is a child article of Creation science, and is sourced mostly to either (a) Creationist literature or (b) Criticisms of Creationist literature. How is it not "Creation science"? I guess we could merge back to the parent article, but that's already fairly big. -- 101.117.111.144 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point is that the WP:FRINGE page mentions creation science. This is a spur. jps (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything of value is discussed in the articles on creationism and the Christian creation myths. This article really is just a WP:POVFORK. Creationists don't have cosmologies as such, they just have the Bible and a whole bunch of post-hoc rationalisations to try to maintain belief in its literal truth in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This article is and always has been a mish-mash of disjointed concepts, a synthesis from disjointed and often mutually exclusive ideologies. It started with good intentions, but since hydroplates now redirects to flood geology the purpose of this article is essentially redundant. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about Hydroplates suggests that you have this article confused with Creation geophysics. -- 101.117.111.144 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:POVFORK of what? This is a child article of Creation science. -- 101.117.111.144 (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the need for an article separate from creation science. Orser67 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a child article of Creation science, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. A merge back in might make sense, but not a deletion. -- 101.117.89.139 (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is no coherent movement associated with "creationist cosmologies" -- that is inaccurate. Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham, the widely recognised leaders of the creationist/creation science movement, are a unifying movement. They advocate the (pseudo)theories of Russell Humphreys and John Harnett. If AiG and Ham are advancing a set of (pseudo)theories, then they are most certainly WP:N. The problem with this article is the Synth and OR, that can be cleaned up, but deletion is not the right approach. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proper articles to discuss the creationist or creation science movement are there. The idea that there is a specific movement regarding cosmology is not supported by independent sources. As such, this article only serves as an originally researched compendium of WP:POVFORKs associated with physical cosmology. jps (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is redacted back to deal only with (young-earth) creationist ideas about cosmology, it will no longer be a POVFORK but a legitimate WP:SPINOFF of creation science, already a lengthy article.

As to the legitimacy of the topic, see these links [15] and [16]. I strongly believe that it reaches the threshold of notability. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ICR and AiG are not reliable sources in terms of WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, possibly with a pared-down merge depending on the target. There are issues of undue weight and especially novel synthesis here that are likely difficult or impossible to overcome. Were it up to me, I'd probably point this back at creation science. I'd be willing to entertain the idea that a vastly shortened version of this might instead have a home as some sort of modern interpretations section of Biblical cosmology, however, but it would need careful caretaking. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very reluctant redirect to creation science While this topic is covered extensively in the ICR and AiG literature, the theories are seldom, if ever, treated in mainstream physical cosmology journals in any way. This creates creates an inherently and unresolvably skewed POV by ignoring the mainstream scientific position. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fork without substantive secondary sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Creationism will almost inevitably be regarded as FRINGE. In contrast with the rival article Creation Science, this one seeks to distinguish different views in creationism. Accordingly, the article should be merged rather than deleted, but I think it is simpler to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this argument. How is creation science a "rival" article? Are you saying that it would be useful to merge content into creation science? If that's the case, then why do you argue it's "simpler" to keep it? jps (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable lunatic fringe stuff is still notable. The massive amount of sources shows that notability and suitability of the topic is not into question. --cyclopia ^speak! 13:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 08:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep a relatively rational article that explains what it is talking about. Creationism is not a as monolithic as sometimes thought, and , like all widely held beliefs, needs full discusion. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is so fringe that it hurts. Presenting mythological alternatives to science on an equal footing violates WP:FRINGE and everything that it stands for. These concepts are already described in detail at Creation science and Young Earth creationism. I have absolutely no problem with documenting creationist theology, but this article has only one purpose: to promote fringe beliefs over science. If it merely documented the fringe beliefs themselves, it would not violate fringe guidelines or require strong scientific sources; instead, this posits them as valid scientific theories. Any internal argument between pseudoscientists or theologians can be discussed in the appropriate articles. This article is manifestly unnecessary. I can't believe we're actually debating this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These problems can and should be dealt with editing, and thus our deletion policy says that they are not a reason to delete. --cyclopia ^speak! 08:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and articles like this one, or articles like Moon landing conspiracy theories, are an opportunity to respond to notable WP:FRINGE beliefs with actual facts. -- 101.117.59.146 (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Properly, not per redirect unless all is duplicated. Some useful material but would be better treated in parent articles. Could be rewritten to ensure it doesn't promote creationist ideas, but not particularly useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very first sentence is unsourced. The article is synthesis because it doesn’t provide a reliable source that states that the expression “creationist cosmologies” refers specifically to those cosmologies that ascribe to the genesis creation myth. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid deletion criterion, but there are many sources supporting the statement. One has been added to the article. -- 101.117.1.218 (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - reference details (including relevant url) of added WP:RS =>

< ref>Ruse, Michael; Travis, Joseph (2009). Evolution: The First Four Billion Years. Harvard University Press. p. 841. ISBN 067403175X.</ref>

Hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:35, 7 May 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.

Science Proposed deletions

Science Miscellany for deletion

Deletion Review