Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation science's attempt to question the reliability of dendrochronology

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Creation science's attempt to question the reliability of dendrochronology
Looks, smells and feels like a POV fork. Unwieldy name, etc. Clearly a topic that should be addressed, but in the respective Dendrochronology or Creation science articles. FCYTravis 01:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Dendrochronology Rocky 01:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Addresses this real issue in an objective neutral way. If you merge this with dendrochronology it will be like merging Star Wars with astronomy. If it needs to be merged, do it with creation science. Bensaccount 01:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Objective and neutral? I suspect that a creation scientician wouldn't agree with that analysis. Pburka 02:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Such a person probably wouldn't, but objectivity and neutrality do not impose a duty to present bunkum as reality. Creation science in general, and this bit in particular, are not widely accepted by those with expertise in the field.  As a minority "theory," their beliefs are entitled to respect and dispassionate presentation -- but not "equal footing" in the absence of equal evidence. Xoloz 07:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd vote for "merge and delete", but that's an incompatible vote. I'd vote for "merge", which would leave a redirect; but then I'd have to rfd the redirect. P.S. I agree that the merge should be with Creation Science. &mdash; Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:03, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * Merge with Dendrochronology, which is the subject in question. If something else is done with it, there should least be a mention on the dendrochronology page. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:29, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * Delete Silly title, POV, no value. --Mintie 04:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Even the title is POV. Might be able to merge into Dendrochronology. Pburka 04:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge content to Dendrochronology. A redirect seems unnecessary, but I take no position on the redirect. Xoloz 05:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful to dendrochronology, no redirect. It might be true, but it isn't neutral, so it needs to be NPOV-ified first. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 06:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it starts to address this non-issue. (Or this issue, if you (a) have just arrived from the nineteenth century or earlier, or perhaps (b) live in red-state USA.) Merge within Creation science -- not dendrology; see Bensaccount's comment above -- and redirect. -- Hoary 07:05, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * Although I too appreciate the wit of Bensaccount, I think the Creationist's "theory" will be more readily and obviously debunked at Dendrochronology. Putting it at Creationism or whatever only piles fiction on fiction and obscures the question.  Xoloz 07:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If it questions the reliability of Dendrochronology it should be merged there. We need to preserve the history per GFDL, (maybe copy to the talk page and then delete the redirect, seems to be appropriate for transwikies, so why not for merges...) - Mgm|(talk) 07:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge Creation science Peter Grey 07:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Creation science. JamesBurns 08:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I merged it with dendrochronology. Anthony Appleyard 09:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont necessarily agree with that but I'll abide by the majority decision. JamesBurns 02:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Creation science and Delete this silly article name without a redirect. As there is no consensus on where to merge this content yet, I reverted the merge by Anthony Appleyard into dendrochronology.  I believe it belongs in creation science, but a link or "see also" in the dendrochronology article would also be appropriate. - Jersyko  talk  14:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * See the guide to Votes for deletion on top of the VFD page. Merge and delete is not a valid option. We need to preserve the edit history when merging. - Mgm|(talk) 08:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a POV on dendrochronology and should be present there, not at the page of the viewpoint to which it is attributed. Placing it on creation science makes very little sense. Right now scientific criticisms of creation science take up about half that article; perhaps we should move all that content to pages like evolution and leave a see also. I'm sure the creationists would be highly amenable to that change. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:45, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * Delete Revolución 21:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or maybe weak merge to Creation Science drini &#9742; 21:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete detail, merge info Young earth creationism. Gazpacho 03:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete SchmuckyTheCat 15:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Scientific inquiry into multiple tree-ring growths exists. See, ,  or . Dan Watts 29 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)
 * Delete Quackery masquerading as science. POV.  Tobycat 30 June 2005 05:50 (UTC)
 * Delete This should have been a quick delete if for only the ridiculous title. Joshuaschroeder 30 June 2005 12:39 (UTC)
 * Null the bits. Deletion may not be good enough. Project2501a 30 June 2005 13:10 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.