Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationist cosmologies

Creationist cosmologies

Creationist cosmologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE violation. There are creationists who deal with the implications from physical cosmology in a variety of ways. Some flatly deny that the science is settled. Some try to use some of the trappings of science to produce ideas they think accord with their literal interpretation of the Bible. Others seem content to pick and choose what they want to accept from the scientific explanations of certain subjects and what they will reject. I believe that all of these approaches are best described, when WP:PROMINENT enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, on pages either devoted to explaining the ideas of particularly notable individuals or on pages such as creationism, creation science, and so forth. However, this amalgamation is essentially an originally researched treatise slapping together a lot of disparate ideas in one spot, something that we are explicitly forbidden from doing. Trying to outline the "varieties" or "tenets (sic)" of creationism in general let alone creationist approaches to cosmology in particular is the job for someone who is either giving a sermon or writing an academic dissertation about pseudoscientific beliefs: it is not appropriate for Wikipedia which is supposed to rely on reliable sources that make the points of analysis and connection themselves rather than allowing for Wikipedians to connect the dots in novel ways. jps (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation geophysics. jps (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This article was originally focussed on Young Earth Creationist theories of cosmology. In my opinion it was a better quality article at that time and did not suffer from many of the problems listed above (particularly WP:SYNTH). I think that an article on this topic is appropriate -- pseudoscience doesn't equal fringe especially if there is a large subculture of people who subscribe to it. (Cf. the article about flood geology). So I would advocate keep and improve not delete. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Unlike flood geology which can be identified as the revival of a defunct set of explanations by George McCready Price and Henry M. Morris to promote creationism, there is no coherent movement associated with "creationist cosmologies", nor is there any reason to preference young earth creationist ideas over those of old earth creationists such as Hugh Ross or accommodationists who try to steer clear of the pseudoscience being promoted by their fellow creationists. There are individuals who argue for their own pet ideas, but we aren't empowered at this website to create a clearinghouse for such. We have biography pages for such. jps (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. This may be WP:FRINGE, but it's spectacularly notable. There is no shortage of critical sources. In fact WP:NFRINGE specifically mentions "Creation science" topics as examples of notable topics. Also, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. -- 101.117.30.180 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Everything of value is discussed in the articles on creationism and the Christian creation myths. This article really is just a WP:POVFORK. Creationists don't have cosmologies as such, they just have the Bible and a whole bunch of post-hoc rationalisations to try to maintain belief in its literal truth in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This article is and always has been a mish-mash of disjointed concepts, a synthesis from disjointed and often mutually exclusive ideologies. It started with good intentions, but since hydroplates now redirects to flood geology the purpose of this article is essentially redundant. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment about Hydroplates suggests that you have this article confused with Creation geophysics. -- 101.117.111.144 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)