Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Answers in Creation
- 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. kurykh 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answers in Creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
tooMuchData
04:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs) 2008/11/12 04:53:40
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is about a webpage, or about an organization, or about a person; I'm not sure, but there's no demonstrated notability on any of these. The beliefs appear to be covered in Old Earth creationism, but I see no reason that this webpage has to be mentioned there. Mandsford (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally nominated it for speedy deletion, but one of the editors asked me to do an AfD; out of courtesy I have, though honestly I do not think, after reading through the guidelines, that it matters. At any rate, it gives those editors time to brainstorm and perhaps come-up with some other course of action; respectful courtesies like these may be unecessary, but I guess it's always worth some cordial civilities for others' sakes. : )
tooMuchData
03:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I originally nominated it for speedy deletion, but one of the editors asked me to do an AfD; out of courtesy I have, though honestly I do not think, after reading through the guidelines, that it matters. At any rate, it gives those editors time to brainstorm and perhaps come-up with some other course of action; respectful courtesies like these may be unecessary, but I guess it's always worth some cordial civilities for others' sakes. : )
- Delete Promotional. Unreferenced. Non-notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This fails WP:WEB. Many creationist organizations (See this category) are notable and therefore have pages, but I couldn't find a single mention of this in the news or in books. DARTH PANDAduel 20:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A search through the usual places for reliable sources turns up nothing. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Old earth creationism. Has anyone looked in The Creationists? The searchable copy at Amazon is only the 1993 edition, not the enlarged 2006 edition. If they are not mentioned in that book, then notability is indeed not established. Nevertheless there are links to this article from a couple of dozen others, and it would not enhance Wikipedia for these to become redlinks. The key points about the organisation can constructively be merged to Old Earth creationism, perhaps in a new section listing organisations active in promoting those views. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2008 (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.