Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation geophysics

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. Happy to stick this in userspace if someone wants to try and salvage some content for a merge to another article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation geophysics[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE violation similar to Creationist cosmologies. There is no consistent nor coherent school of thought on what makes a certain geophysical idea "creation geophysics" and what doesn't. Flood geology is a topic that we already have an article on. jps (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationist cosmologies jps (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems the majority of the references are creationist and unreliable. Can't find any reliable sources for the topic. Goblin Face (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 101.117.30.180 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 101.117.30.180 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep and improve. Contra the nom, it's fairly clear that "Creation geophysics" means statements made about geophysics by "Creation science" advocates. 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. The relationship with the Flood geology article is discussed on this article's talk page. -- 101.117.30.180 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC) — 101.117.30.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Creationism is, of course, complete bollocks, but this "article" raises it to a new level, combining a small number of post-hoc rationalisations based on cherry-picking of genuine scientific findings. Creationism and geophysics are orthogonal. That is all you need to know. Per policy, the article is a mix of novel synthesis, non sequitur and unreliable sources. It's telling that none of the sources claims to be about creation geophysics. Geophysics and creationism are two subjects with pretty much no intersection. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Creationism is contradicted by geophysics pretty much proves there's an overlap. Also, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. There are literally hundreds of reliable sources (including many books) explaining why the Creationist take on geophysics is wrong, and those are all potential WP:RS for the article. There is notability here in spades. -- 101.117.30.180 (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free clue: I've been an admin here for over eight years, you don't need to lecture me on policy. This is a WP:POVFORK as much as anything else, and most of it is eithe redundant, or twaddle, or both. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:POVFORK of what? It's redundant to what? -- 101.117.111.144 (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geophysics. jps (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, you've simply misunderstood the point of the article. The subject of the article is not geophysics per se, but the crazy (yet notable) things Creationists say about geophysics, and the refutations that have been provided by scientists. -- 101.117.57.43 (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less the definition of a WP:POVFORK. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a compendium of crazy things people say, and the claim that these things are "notable" is misplaced. The problem is that crazy things said about geophysics -- no matter what your ideology -- are pretty much by definition not WP:PROMINENT enough for inclusion in any articles about geophysics. You can't get around that by shunting them off to some ghetto to make them notable. jps (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the need for an article specifically on this subject, separate from creation science. Orser67 (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. What distinguishes this from flood geology? Plausible search term, I suppose, but surely we only need one article on the fringe topic of how creation science tries to explain rocks? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk page. This is a broader topic, from which the flood geology material was separated out (and that probably was the most interesting part). A merge back into the parent Creation science article might make sense. -- 101.117.57.43 (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think I stand by my belief that we can cover anything that has significant RS coverage in flood geology. They're not that different, and part of the idea of WP:FRINGE is that sometimes the fringe-topic writers just don't get to have articles for all the little categorization levels like non-fringe material would. Supporting my view on that is not-really-policy-compliant Google Books count analysis: I get well over 5000 hits on flood geology and seven for creation geophysics. Creation science is a broad parent article and I think a less adequate redirect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the material here can probably be merged into Flood geology, but happy to go either way. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find a single source, reliable or otherwise, that mentions creation geophysics, so there is no point redirecting it anywhere. That said, some of the material could be moved to Creation science or Young earth creationism - for example, the Barnes theory on the decay of the Earth's magnetic field, for which a number of reliable sources exist (e.g., Brush, Stephen G. (1984). "Ghosts from the nineteenth century: Creationist arguments for a young Earth". In Godfrey, Laurie R. (ed.). Scientists confront creationism. New York: W.W. Norton. pp. 49–84. ISBN 9780393301540.). RockMagnetist (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.