Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6,000 to 10,000 years old,

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. &mdash; Xezbeth 20:24, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

6,000 to 10,000 years old,
VfD: Reason. which ever angle you may look at it, you just can't see a NPOV in it...

Project2501a 23:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - Indeed. I'm sure that any useful information in the article is already contained in one or more of the creationism articles already on Wikipedia.  Moreover, its name is not in accordance with Naming Conventions. Ben Babcock 23:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ill-conceived, badly named, POV CDC   (talk)  00:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

RSB
 * Do NOT DELETE I do not see any reason to delete it -- other than that Wikipedia doesn't want to give Young Earth Creationists a chance to defend their beliefs -- from a logical and scientific viewpoint. Of course, if Wikipedia is full of bigots (who are afraid of any competing views then that would explain whey they wouldn't want to allow Creationists to defend their view here).


 * Good choise of words. Very, very subblte. Sorry, bubba, but you are not "defending" your possition. You are desimminating propaganda. Watch the road next time you try to cross a zebra crossing. Project2501a 02:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please remember that Wikipedia is not a discussion or debate forum, it's an encyclopedia. Creationists' views have already been presented in the article Creationism. Stancel 00:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article is obviously a extremely non-NPOV. Aside from that, it is a space waster that should simply redirect to Young Earth creationism. Read the article all you want, it is plaqued with a non-NPOV. Also, as stated, the name is not in accordance with Naming Conventions. It also has a slew of grammatical errors, and needs to be cleaned up generally. But I would not waste my time doing that. Simply put, it needs to be deleted. Also, the above post suggests the over-devotion of the creator and editor of this article, and this sort of attitude will only induce more NPOV's in the coming edits.

''I do not see any reason to delete it -- other than that Wikipedia doesn't want to give Young Earth Creationists a chance to defend their beliefs -- from a logical and scientific viewpoint. Of course, if Wikipedia is full of bigots (who are afraid of any competing views then that would explain whey they wouldn't want to allow Creationists to defend their view here).''


 * Ok, here's your chance to defend your article. One rule: you're not allowed to use the words "God" and "bible" or any synonyms. And you have to give evidence. Project2501a 02:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a place to defend or preach your beliefs, this is obviously your intent. There should be no competing here, and to create an article like this in response to what you believe to be an ongoing competition between creationists and evolutionists only encourages the problem.R Lee E 00:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete it's an essay not an article, also Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It also has no neutral point of view. Stancel 00:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why NOT Leave it for a Week What are you all SO AFRAID OF???


 * Delete. I'm all for giving Creationists an opportunity to defend their beliefs from a logical and scientific viewpoint, but that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Whimemsz 00:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

If there is ANYTHING that is said in that Article that us False, then feel free to check it out and correct it. If however, it is all True, then why in the world would you want to keep that from the public???

(I just did. See bottom)


 * Also, if you are Really in favor of giving Creationists an opportunity to defend their beliefs, then why not allow them to do so Here and Now???


 * The two previous comments should only encourage a speedy deletion. R Lee E 00:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, "Truthteller" clearly has no familiarity at all with Wikipedia rules and policy, and they are being rather obnoxious. I don't see how this falls under speedy-delete, though. Just because someone is being annoying or arrogant shouldn't mean you can speedy-delete their article that's on VFD... --Whimemsz 00:35, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a polemic, not an encyclopedia article. We don't have a Wikipolemic - maybe we should. --FCYTravis 00:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - Obviously NPOV. To the user defending the article, welcome to Wikipedia, however articles such as this which obviously present only one side of an issue are unwelcomed on Wikipedia regardless of which opinion they take, whether pro or anti creationism. The debate is not whether there is anything true or false within the article, the debate is over whether the article should exist in the first place in regards to Wikipedia's rules and policies on which pages should be kept and whcih deleted. -CunningLinguist 00:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - POV is screwed, at least the facts could be presented on Young Earth page, instead of a new article. Xen 03:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Apart from POV, no one is going to search for this name. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Material is already covered thoroughly (and with sound copyediting) in Young Earth creationism. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Invalid article title, untenable arguments which can all be knocked down.  RickK 04:28, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge the very scant content here into Young Earth Creationism. A Man In Black 04:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's actually a bloody comma at the end of the title. But since that's no reason for deletion: what TenOfAllTrades said. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Put content where it belongs; don't carve out a niche for yourself to present your POV. JRM · Talk 04:51, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Megan1967 04:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;POV, soapbox, comma, yadda yadda. All said above.  Do not redirect.  Postdlf 04:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, propaganda, soapbox, etc.  Antandrus 04:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV rant, title not useful. Gazpacho 05:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, terrible title, subject already covered at other articles...and it's total bullshit.--Plainsong 06:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone might like to merge the various arguments into Young Earth creationism if they can be individually sourced. Delete the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete crackpot article. Martg76 11:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Starting withthe Title of the Article, there's no reason to keep this separated from other creationism articles. --Marianocecowski 10:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationists base their beliefs on the evidence from Scripture, such as described in Genesis Chapters 1-3, clarified in Exodus 20:9-11, and alluded to by Christ, Himself, in Matthew 19:4
 * Challenged to delete false data I did. The article now reads

They also pick and choose from many different Geophysical, Astronomical, Bioligical, and Historical evidences to justify their prior held beliefs.

For example, the oldest living tree is between 4,000 and 5,000 years old, and yet it is still living. Perhaps it will live for another 10,000 (or more years). Using this as one evidence that something happened about 4,500 years ago that wiped out virtually all life on Planet Earth, such as the Flood of Noah is an example of that picking and choosing. 4.250.201.207 12:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Regardless of content change, the name of the page itself does not lend itself for Wikipedia's purposes&mdash;it ends in a comma. And now that a lot of information has been removed, why should the page not be simply redirected to Young Earth creationism?  That article's name is more pertinent to the topic, and even though it has its own POV issues to sort through, it does it more thoroughly than this article will. Ben Babcock 13:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I vote Delete after considering this rewrite; don't redirect this title on which nobody will search. POV, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or discussion forum, and all verifiable sourced content exists in same or better form at the young-earth creationism article referenced above, so there's nothing needing to be merged.  Any kind of superstition that garners this much controversy is noteworthy, but it's been better-documented before, and WP doesn't need poorly-presented and poorly-titled pieces rehashing the old unscientific claims.  The only part of the article I agreed with was "They also pick and choose from many different ... evidences to justify their prior held beliefs."  Barno 18:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Still a badly titled POV fork of Young Earth creationism. No change of vote. This article can't be fixed. Gazpacho 09:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 10:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm afraid of the truth. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Painfully obvious DELETE. "Perhaps it will live for another 10,000 (or more years). Using this as one evidence that something happened about 4,500 years ago that wiped out virtually all life on Planet Earth, such as the Flood of Noah is an example of that picking and choosing."  Hooey.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whig 08:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - no way to title an article; content belongs in Young Earth Creationism. -- BD Abram son thi m k 21:15, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice this biased, ill-named screed. Kelly Martin 23:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.