Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationist cosmologies


 * 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)

Creationist cosmologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)

See also Articles for deletion/Creation geophysics. jps (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The point is that the WP:FRINGE page mentions creation science. This is a spur. jps (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * And WP:POVFORK of what? This is a child article of Creation science. -- 101.117.111.144 (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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 and . I strongly believe that it reaches the threshold of notability. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ICR and AiG are not reliable sources in terms of WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * FWIW - reference details (including relevant url) of added WP:RS =>
 * Hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 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.