Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flood in ancient Chinese writing


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 06:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Flood in ancient Chinese writing
hi this is fake by Andrew Kraley This page violates WP:NOT and WP:NOR. The article also basically only talks about one Chinese character for "boat" and expand on this one single issue. I do not think that that ONE argument (based only on one character) is enough to be a proof for "The Flood in ancient Chinese writing"; or that it's important enough to have its own Wikipedia article. To assume such conclusion based on just one single Chinese character is simply POV and non-encyclopedic. Furthermore, no important references are in place.

Heilme 10:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - per reasons above. Heilme 10:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Noah's Ark or Deluge (mythology) or possibly Flood geology. Whatever one may think of the reasoning, this _is_ one of the standard Creationist arguments, and I think it should be represented somewhere.  The article as it stands seems NPOV enough to me - it states the case against the theory as well as the case for it. Tevildo 10:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Heilme. It's a shame that the article tries to rebut the argument with some reasonable points instead of ignoring the preposterous idea altogether. --die Baumfabrik 11:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment By that reasoning, we should delete everything about creationism. NPOV works both ways. Tevildo 11:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. We certainly should; you and me against the world, comrade. --die Baumfabrik 12:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Flood geology. David Sneek 13:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Original thought and totally unsearchable. --IslaySolomon 18:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment For those wanting to delete this for being OR, it would be easy to paraphrase the talk.origins discussion of this issue  to preserve the information on a more appropriate page.  Consider this also to be a cited reference. :) Tevildo 19:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If the basis for this article (Chinese character for "boat" = proof of the Flood being recorded in ancient Chinese writing) comes from a book, then the title of the article should be a title of that book and the content should be a summary of that book. Otherwise, to draw a conclusion and assume that an argument from an author is a "fact", is totally POV and non-encyclopedic. This is the same degree of speculation as that book by Gavin Menzies - 1421: The Year China Discovered America. I mean, just because an author - Gavin Menzies - put forth an argument that the Chinese discovered the Americas in 1421 doesn't translate that into a "fact" and doesn't mean that we can make an encyclopedic Wiki article on that, unless the article itself a synopsis of the book. It's at best a hypothesis, not even a "theory". Furthermore, another reason why this article is Original Research: the "pros" and "cons" points beings put forth in this article cannot be found in any references and reflect the opinions of the editors. Heilme 21:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This laughable argument has not been brought up nor verified by any scholar with appropriate qualifications (the source I trace back is a reverend in Singapore, the notion was publicized to the West by a pathologist). It doesn't deserve an article. I'd suggest to merge it back to something like Noah's Ark or some related article. --Yenchin 23:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Flood geology or to the book in which this argument was made, if that has an article. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Article creator seems to have jumped to conclusions, based on the discussion here. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment seems like original research to me. 68.50.203.109 08:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable and original research. TheRingess 08:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete a mention could be made somewhere else but frankly this theory is nonsense Cause of death


 * 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.