Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-catastrophism

 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. Pending deletion. Joyous 22:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Neo-catastrophism
Original essay with a neologistic name. I'd say merge if not for the fact that all content found here is already better explained in other sections. Radiant! 09:46, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * This nomination has too few votes. It is the belief of this particular administrator that this debate is still on-going.  Due to the change in how votes for deletion is processed, it has been readded so that a consensus may be reached. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing in this article distinguishes between neo-catastrophism and the traditional 19th-century concept of catastrophism. Re-write if it's a meaningful term, delete otherwise. - TB 12:42, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not terribly well-written essay. Android79 17:01, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but a weak one. Appears to be attested to, including references in some college courses. Still only 571 Google hits, however. I would agree with both of the above that it is in need of a substantial rewrite. HyperZonktalk 18:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV original essay. Megan1967 23:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original essay, neologism. The funny thing is that I think it's a valid and noteworthy observation. There really was a uniformitarian orthodoxy prior to Luis Alvarez' presentation of the asteroid impact theory. Some may remember Immanuel Velikovsky, a nutjob with who wrote a book or books in the 1950s, Worlds in Collision being the title of one of them, full of cockamamie theories about how all sorts of BIblical miracles were explained by planets randomly knocking other planets to leave their orbits at the right time so that they could part the Red Sea, cause the Flood, etc. I think the manna from heaven that fed the Israelites in the wilderness was supposed to be edible hydrocarbons from a comet's tail or something. Anyway, he was scorned by the scientific establishment, in part because it was just felt that the universe didn't work that way. Geological events were the results of slow, continuous processes. Then Alvarez came along, and my first thought was "Wow! Velikovsky stuff!" Now we live in a world where all sorts of things are thought be caused by asteroids smacking into planets. There really has been a change in our world view. But such comments probably belong in Uniformitarianism and/or Catastrophism and should be cautious and well-sourced. Well, there's my little original POV essay for the day. But at least I'm not spouting it into an article in the main namespace. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Josh Cherry 03:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Dpbsmith. It might be nice to have an interesting article on modern catastopist theories, but this isn't it.  Miss Pippa 10:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete' This is handled at Catastrophism, Immanuel Velikovsky, Tollmann's hypothetical bolide Tunguska Event etc. none of which are linked here. They are more in the nature of encyclopedia reports than essays. This ne is purely a pwrsinal essay. --Wetman 11:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per Dpbsmith (and frankly I'm amazed we don't have a Worlds in Collision article yet; Velikovsky is always good for a laugh) Antandrus 17:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this drivel. Please.  Edeans 23:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete What makes it Neo? I don't see the relevance. Catastrophes happen. If this were supposed to be in contrast to Biblical catastrophes and in support of rare events that drive evolution, then it should be kept.  I don't see any value to the current article.  --Aranae 08:05, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Catastrophism to discourage recreation - David Gerard 15:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vsmith 17:12, 11 Mar 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.