Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy on Radiometric dating

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate wasdelete. Though there were some votes to merge, all of them suggested that only parts of the article should be merged, and none of them were specific about what parts. So I interpreted the consensus as, "delete unless someone else figures out something to merge;" no one did. Chick Bowen 04:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy on Radiometric dating[edit]

POV fork; should be merged back into Radiometric dating or Radiocarbon dating. Peyna 02:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep i'd want to see if something good can come out of this, the radiocarbon dating article is getting long and a straightforward list and explanation of more famous controversies could be beneficial. Homestarmy 02:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of the articles I proposed for merger are by any means overly lengthy or crowded. Please see WP:POVFork. Peyna 04:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Homestarmy. JoshuaZ 02:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright as POV rubbish --DV8 2XL 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It definitely needs a lot of work, but it is a topic that is highly reasonable for an article. JoshuaZ 02:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge any relevant info to Radiometric dating. This does not warrant an article by itself. Monkeyman(talk) 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the title sounds a bit problematic. Move to Controversy over Radiometric dating or Radiometric dating controversy. Bobby1011 02:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing worth merging to Radiometric dating - it's all tired creationist POV straw grabbing. Vsmith 02:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Radiometric dating, cleaning up and making NPOV along the way. Radiometric dating is not too long, and there is some salvagable info in this article.--Gjc8 03:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge examples, but clean up and NPOV. delete Schizombie 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tired creationist nonsense. Please see talk.origins. Cyde Weys 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Radiometric dating, and edit for NPOV and relevance Delete. I don't have any problem with a note in radiometric dating acknowledging that some people challenge the concept of radiometric dating on the basis of their religious beliefs, which is certainly true, and which is what this is likely to distill down to. Actinide 06:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On reflection, delete - given there is no "controversy" as such, no such name should redirect to radiometric dating.Actinide 20:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - separate controversy articles certainly seem to be POV forks. (At least, when the controversy isn't the main reason a lot of people have heard about it.) Michael Ralston 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete as above. At present it is a mess and should be merged back with a clean up. If the part of the main article begins to get large, it could be considered for rewriting, but under the more POV names suggested above. If a clean up is not done on the merge, delete it. --Bduke 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't vote merge unless you plan on doing the merge yourself. There are over a hundred AfD discussions that end each day; how many of them are merge, and how much effort do you expect the closing admins to put into this? Regardless, there is no salvageable information in the article in question. It's all thoroughly refuted claptrap. If you want to see why it is false, check out here, here, here, et al. Actually the whole talkorigins site is a good reference. --Cyde Weys 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BUT
    • Merge only the paragraph about the nature of the controversy.
    • If final consensus is to merge DO NOT merge with radiocarbon dating. It doesn't belong there. What's missing there is a section on chemical pretreatment of samples to be dated since that's a source of misunderstanding. A radiocarbon date is as good as the dated material. If it has been contaminated by old or young carbon, the date does not represent the historical or geological event ascribed to the sample. What it would be useful is to include, in all dating articles, clear statements about the difference between the dates of minerals in rocks vs the dates of geomorphological formations composed of the same rocks. Jclerman 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unecessary POVfork. Interested parties could merge per Peyna if they are interested in keeping this information.--Isotope23 14:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the "controversies" outlined are misleading. As per Actinide, the radiocarbon dating article should include information on disagreements based on religous beliefs. Cheers, Rickert 19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article does not address its importance and its notability. The article is not necessarily POV (there are claims and counterclaims), but falls dangerously close to violating WP:NOR as it is unclear, from the citations given, how valid each of its points are. Cdcon 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There may be controversy about radiometric dating, but this article doesn't talk about it. Also appears to suffer from an acute case of WP:OWN: "Rebuttle [sic] deleted"? (ESkog)(Talk) 21:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page has no value - it merely refers to sources without presenting any information on this debate. (In addition, religious beliefs do not cause controversy about the accuracy of radiometric dating, although it is worth mentioning that Creationists use these alleged inaccuracies in their arguments.) -- Mithent 22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is hopeless and should be at best a tiny note in radiometric dating. JoshuaZ 22:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BUT I certainly think that the Radiometric dating article should mention the criticisms from creationists - to say "tired creationist nonsense" is obviously not NPOV. It should be (briefly) mentioned, and interested parties can then add their rebuttals, citing references. Camillus (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I lose at about, what 18:1? delete this article already heh. Homestarmy 01:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, it's a discussion, and AfD stays open for five days. Peyna 04:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. And lol. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Radiometric dating. POV forking is not an approved method of resolving disputes. Stifle 00:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to gag-reflex mergists: What do you intend upon merging? The POV original research or the non-notable and contrived examples which don't seem to demonstrate much except that things have occasionally been dated. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:10, 2 March 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversy_on_Radiometric_dating&oldid=1080004371"