CreationWiki:Recommend deletion
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
| Policy |
 |
| Participation |
|---|
| Editing |
| Content |
|
Using site content |
| Collaboration |
If you believe that a page has been created that does not belong on the CreationWiki, please bring it to the attention of our editorial staff by recommending it for deletion below. This will give others the opportunity to improve upon the work or make justification for its retention before being deleted by the administration.
Pages should be recommended for deletion that are:
- Copyright infringements - See Project Copyrights
- Offtopic - This site is an archive for creation apologetics related topics only.
- Erroneous - The page content is overtly inaccurate.
- Reflects negatively upon the credibility of the creationist community.
- Empty - The page was started, but perhaps forgotten. We want to minimize dead links.
- Inflammatory, profane, or in poor taste.
- Pro-atheism perspectives.
- Intentional acts of vandalism.
To recommend an article for deletion:
- Place the tag {{delete}} at the top of the page in question. This tag is a template that will create a header stating that the page in question has been recommended for deletion. The header will also automatically create a link to this page where the reasons for the deletion should be stated.
- Place the recommended article's exact title on this page as an section heading, and then state the reason for the recommendation in the space beneath the heading. Be sure to create a link to the article in question in your explanation.
Contents |
Recommendations for deletion
 Submit a recommendation for deletion |
Jeremiah Wright
Off topic and inflammatory. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. Jeremiah Wright is not a scientist, nor have I ever considered him a scholar, either of the Bible or of the Table of Nations or anything else that his sermons have touched on, even remotely. He therefore merits neither mention nor reply in a project like this. Specifically, he is not in the same league with Talk.Origins or Richard Dawkins or any specific evolution popularizer. (I'm not even sure what his views really are on evolution or evolutionism; I've never read anything from him on those topics.)
- Furthermore, politics is beyond our scope. Let Conservapedia talk about him (as they do). (Full disclosure impels me to reveal that I am an administrator of Conservapedia, and a senior one.) Let us concentrate on building a sound Biblical apologetic, a model for creation, and a refutation of the general theory of evolution. Let us leave politics to other sites.--TemlakosTalk 12:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
If this article receives no defenders within the next week, it shall be deleted.--TemlakosTalk 20:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to delete obsolete files or obvious cases of vandalism, but deleting a proper article or opinion piece should be our last course of action, and only after due process.
- I do not find this recommendation to be well supported, nor the article to contain content that justifies an almost immediate deletion. I agree that adjustments to the article should be made, but editors must be provided ample opportunity to make the changes necessary to head-off the deletion of a work. Several weeks would be a minimal duration - providing opportunity for improvement is the ultimate purpose for the recommendation process.
- Political content is also most certainly not offtopic. It is appropriate and our intent to defend the Biblical worldview through education and also political expositions. The latter is likely to include the promotion of legislature and the support of candidates that uphold Judeo-Christian principles and morals.
--Ashcraft - (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I acknowledge the above.
In that case, we'll need to set some clear guidelines about writing an article about any contemporary political and/or religious leader with whom we cannot fail to disagree on most if not all aspects of his program. I am very much afraid that one cannot say anything "nice" about Jeremiah Wright. I cannot justify, nor even excuse, a word he is reported to have said. And though I have seen the Jeremiah Wright article only briefly, I'm not sure that any of the things that it contains could in all justice be considered libelous. As the legal eagles at the firm of Fulbright and Jaworski taught me and several other then-graduating medical students at Baylor College of Medicine,
| “ | Truth is a complete defense to a charge of libel. | ” |
Now we can certainly confine ourselves to a bald quotation of his sermons, and limit our evaluation of the man to the Essay namespace. But we'll need a guideline for how we want to present ourselves in any namespace. Call it "How to handle inherently inflammatory material without inflaming yourself."--TemlakosTalk 03:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I recommend reconsideration of the decision not to delete this article. There have been no significant edits since April 2008, it is still incomplete ("The page was started, but perhaps forgotten"), the author has had nearly a year "to make the changes necessary to head-off" deletion (which I consider more than "ample opportunity"), and it is still lacking in any reference to "creation apologetics related topics" (part of the "Offtopic" definition above), still less any actual content related to creation apologetics.
- Further discussion appears on the talk page. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Appendix
This article presents a pro-evolutionary and atheistic claims and is inaccurate regarding the use of the appendix or lack thereof. See media file below:
- Your Appendix-Is it Useless? Answers in Genesis
- Deletion is not required. However, I will revise the article to refer people to Vestigial organs.--TemlakosTalk 18:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- UPDATE: The article Appendix is now revised. In the next few days, I will consider various plans to remove the redundancy between this article and the section called "The Appendix" in Vestigial organs.--TemlakosTalk 12:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- The standard solution on WP and similar sites is to make the section of the VO page a summary of the relevant points of the "main" Appendix page, then link from the VO page to the Appendix page with {{main|Appendix}}. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Insert Article Title Here
Talk:Mark Saward
Broken redirect to deleted page. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
