Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baraminology

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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:03Z

Baraminology[edit]

Pretty much this ENTIRE ARTICLE is based on http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/ alone, indeed, there was copyvio from that site until earlier today. As I thought there was reasonable consensus (50% spontaniously suggested merging) in the last afd), and Talk:Created kind), what parts of this article are verifiable and not single-source have already been merged with Created kind, but the changing of this page to a redirect proved controversial, so I ask you for permission to delete a page (making it a redirect, of course) where all the verifiable, notable material is already merged. I'd also like to point out that neither article is well-maintained (check the logs - edited maybe once a month), so merging them will make them more maintainable by focusing what minor effort there is. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

Redirect No reason not to. I don't know what unhealthy process obsessions are creating this problem but a) they aren't good and b) are an incorrect interpretation of policy anyways. JoshuaZ 19:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and source both or delete. Neither this article, nor Created kind is actually verified by the sources in the references section. While both terms are fairly notable in the area of pseudoscience, verification is really critical for even notable subjects. i kan reed 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just two months ago the AfD conclusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baraminology/Archive was keep as this is a subset of creationist belief not shared by all creationists. And it is difficult to deal with the verification issue: the holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, and polybaramin distinction section is not a copyvio (I wrote it in 2004) but it says similar things to what Adam Cuerden regards as a copyvio. --Henrygb 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, the old one was near word-for-word similar, you pointed out that very old ones were slightly different. Those terms still only have one source, and less than a thousand ghits each. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baraminology/Copyvio Have a look at this. I highlighted the words that were identical. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that is a case for reverting back to the earlier and now current non-copyvio version. Which I did, before you put up this new AfD page. So it should not be an issue here. And I see 11,000 hits for baraminology--Henrygb 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "That Adam considers a Copyvio" is implying that others wwouldn't consider it as such. You brought it up, I just said there was one previously (not naming a section), as it does make me worry that the other sections might have hidden copyvio. Also, I was referring to Holobaramin (~649 ghits), monobaramin (649 ghits as well), apobaramin (348 ghits), and polybaramin (218) - that whole section is clearly non-notable, anyway, and other sections, if anything, are *EVEN WORSE*. This is why it should be merged: there's not enough to say about it that isn't single-source. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, take this section, "Recent baraminology research": In 2003, the Baraminology Study Group applied "analysis of pattern" to multidimensional biological character space data on sunflowers and fossil equids. They found a strong linear relationship and continuity among the sunflowers, and termed this relationship "biological trajectory." In applying the method of fossil equids, they found a branching relationship in the data, which indicated a divergence in ancestry. The linear relationship corresponded to the known chronological order of the fossils.[1] - This is a summary of a SINGLE, NON-NOTABLE PAPER. And I don't think that anything but the sections I put into Created kind does any better. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand This is useful information for several reasons. First, it is clearly a major component of creationist pseudoscience. Creationists, and those trying to decipher creationist nonsense and blather will want to have access to this to be able to understand what they are encountering. This is the principle function of an encyclopedia; to provide a ready source of information about some subject. Second, this term will not likely be covered in standard science texts, because it is pseudoscience, but still those trying to defend against this pseudoscience need to understand it to arm themselves. This makes a WP contribution even more relevant. Third, the only other source of this sort of material will be in the copious creationist websites and tracts. None of them of course will identify it as pseudoscience, which it is. They will only talk about how wonderful it is, misleading the naive. So, in the absence of any proper scientific reference, the only information the public will have is badly biased. This is why it is REALLY important for WP to discuss it from a neutral point of view. Is it plagiarism of a single source? Possibly. Is it still pretty scanty? Yes it sure is. So it should be expanded, and fleshed out, so it can form a resource that is balanced, describing what baraminology is, its relevance, history, providing links, etc. This would be a very useful contribution. --Filll 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are other articles that wikilink to Baraminology. ^ross^nixon 01:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That isn't a reason to keep it by itself, it might just mean they will all redirect to created kind. As far as I can tell, the notion of baraminology hasn't been discussed in any independent reliable sources. Heck, the TOA which is one of the most prominent pro-evolution/anti-creationist/whatever-term-you-prefer groups has not a single mention of the term. [2]. Contrast that to something like Flood geology which has gotten mentioned in major newspapers and other independent sources. JoshuaZ 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a concept used by a considerable number of people in a definable way, and the use of it is (unfortunately) widespread enough to be notable. I have added some additional distinction to make clear that it is not a science, and that the terminology it uses is not scientifically meaningful. There are different groups of creationists, and they use different terms and have organized their field in various ways. They shouldn't be considered as a homogeneous mass, as the disputes among them make evident. There is a single biological science, biology dealing with testable relationships. This is not true of creationism, as its concepts are derived on other bases. DGG 07:56, 13 February 2007 (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.