The Creation Wiki is now operating on a new and improved server.
CreationWiki:Recommend deletion
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
| Policy |
 |
| Participation |
|---|
|
Terms of service |
| 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 |
Talkorigins refutation
Appears to be abandoned. No clear creationist point made. Title does not describe the content clearly enough for another author to pick up where the work was left off. ~ Webster (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2012 (PST)
FAQs about eternity
This page is erroneous. It contains information, given as factual, which is well outside any of the views of the creationist community. The page also contains original work, with no referencing. CreationWiki is not a forum for proposing new theories. New theories should be submitted to one of the peer-reviewed creationist journals. As such, the lack of scholarship in the article reflects negatively upon the credibility of the creationist community.—unsigned comment by Pftaylor (talk • contribs)
- Acknowledged. In my opinion, the concepts presented in the article, in particular about the eternal nature of the creation week, are not consistent with the creationist POV. The author should make substantial revisions, including citations from credible creationist publications to prevent deletion. --Ashcraft - (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2011 (PDT)
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)
I would like to revisit these concerns. Has the original author, and other revisions adequately addressed the concerns that caused this article to be recommended for deletion? PLEASE ADVICE... --Ashcraft - (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2011 (PDT)
- A fairly large number of minor changes have been made to the articles. The article has been subject to a great deal of copyediting. Internal links have been added while outgoing links have been updated. Some of the most inflammatory language has been removed; more still remains. The appearance of incompleteness has been reduced, but only by removing empty sections, not by filling them in; no significant text has been added.
- None of this, however, addresses my primary concern, which is that nothing in the article seems to relate to the purpose of the CreationWiki. Nowhere in the article will one find any of the following words: creation, evolution, apologetics, science, young, old, earth, or any derivative of these (except "Unapologetically", which appears in his church's motto but is used in a way that is unrelated to the field of apologetics and one mention of the "Old Testament"). You will not find anywhere, neither here nor on the talk page, a single description of how the article relates to the Creation Point of View, despite repeated invitations to provide one, over a comments period spanning more than
two and a halfthree years. The primary author of the piece asserts that Wright is a creationist, but neither justifies this alleged fact nor demonstrates its relevance. - You mentioned defending creationism in the political realm. Wright is not a politician, nor a member of the political or policy staff of a politician, and has been disavowed by the only politician to whom he has been prominently linked. He no longer appears to be a player in that realm. No evidence has been presented to show that his views on the creation/evolution issue (whatever they are) have had any influence on any real or potential political figure.
- In sum, I still cannot see even a tangential relationship to any reason for hosting this information here. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2011 (PDT)
