Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Wyatt's alleged discoveries


 * 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. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt's alleged discoveries
Violates, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Importance, is basically a personal essay on finding Noah's Ark. Wyatt is a crank who may deserve his own article but his ideas have so little merit that they don't, atleast not this mess. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 11:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Ron Wyatt. The man himself seems to be of dubious significance, his "findings" certainly do not deserve their own article. --IslaySolomon 11:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read the entire article, most of it is very skeptical about it, edited from Ron Wyatt's opponents, so if that's the NPOV violation I should put more Wyatt promoters? And perhaps it definitely deserves an own page for it. If you're skeptic about him, (I'm too) let's criticise his works (even though he's dead). If you label him as a crank you're definitely violating NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo 7 (talk • contribs)
 * Merge into Ron Wyatt or into respective "findings" sites like Ark of the Covenant, Searches for Noah's Ark etc. I too do not feel it merits an entire article.--TurabianNights 15:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, the title is too weaselly. Gazpacho 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Any non-OR material into Wyatt's pre-existing article. JoshuaZ 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the main article already contains these claims that lack scientific/academic proof. C56C 09:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this article contains no material that shouldn't also appear in the Ron Wyatt article. It doesn't work as a redirect and is an unnecessary fork. --ScienceApologist 00:31, 17 August 2006 (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.