Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time dilation creationism

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 was redirect‎ to Creation science#Creationist cosmologies as a valid ATD, without prejudice against selective merger. While deletion based on WP:FRINGE was correctly refuted, questionable sourcing remained a valid concern, leading to a consensus against keeping this as a standalone page. The Creationist cosmologies target received marginally more support than Young_Earth_creationism#View_of_the_Bible did, but this decision can be debated editorially on the Talk page, and doesn't require adjudication by an AfD. Owen× ☎ 06:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time dilation creationism

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Time dilation creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFRINGE. I find no notice of this by WP:FRIND sources. Only creationists seem interested enough to comment. Wikipedia really is WP:NOT for discussing every flight-of-fancy that a creationist has about how to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific facts. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of meeting notability guidelines, which would be provided by significant coverage in non-crackpot sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:FRINGE creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Nom admits this is a religious, not scientific topic, and yet proposes to apply scientific article criteria to it, making this nomination completely erroneous and hence eligible for speedy keep per SK#3. The religious sources are sufficient and appropriate (independent, etc.) for GNG to be satisfied. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an absurd argument. Creationists routinely present their arguments as 'scientific', and are clearly doing so in this particular instance. Just read the sources cited. Pseudoscience does not cease to be pseudoscience when promoted to support religious faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they do. And when they're doing so on a religious basis, religious rules apply, not FRINGE. Sorry if you don't like the guideline, but I didn't write it. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant section in WP:FRINGE makes absolutely clear that it is referring to Notable perspectives and states the fact that claims from [e.g. creationist] perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. The article presents zero evidence that either mainstream theologians nor mainstream scientists have even heard of this 'perspective', never mind bothered trying to address it. The only non-creationist source currently cited in the article doesn't even bother to describe the 'perspective' in any detail, instead mentioning "time dilation" in passing in a single sentence in a section on "Examples of Pseudoscience". [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? In what way is this article describing the creation of the world on a purely religious basis? Are you claiming that Russell Humphreys believes that time dilation is some sort of theological allegory?! jps (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally using Christian-themed sources, 6 and 7 in particular. Christianity is still a religion... That's what the person was explaining. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the above, the suggestion that the religious sources being cited are 'independent' is both questionable and irrelevant, since they clearly aren't reliable sources for anything but the beliefs of their own authors regarding an obscure theory. Nothing is cited that establishes that this particular pseudoscientific hypothesis is even significant within creationism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I stripped out the science WP templates from the talk page as being non-relevant. The stub template was changed from cosmology to creationism. Beyond that I have no particular preference; it's pure pseudoscience so astronomy isn't all that relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notability in RS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should be kept in mind that the primary focus of the article is not scientific, but religious. It is a theological doctrine more than serious science. Thus it should be viewed with the criteria of a religious article. I did not intend to promote this thing when creating the article and I did not intend to promote fringe theories, but I thought that the article should be there to represent different religious doctrines. And as someone else already noted, WP:FRINGE reads: creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus the point of the original deletion request does not seem to be valid. As a religious doctrine, there seems to be just enough coverage for it. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to Jclemens above. No evidence has been provided that this perspective/doctrine has been "disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists". Or discussed in any detail by non-creationist sources at all. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you don't understand what is religious and what is not is not our responsibility. Science is testable under controlled, repeatable conditions; this is not. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have just discovered pseudoscience. As for what is or isn't religious, I have a degree in anthropology, and accordingly could write an entire dissertation on why trying to divide things into the religious and the non-religious is a fools errand. Fortunately though, that is unnecessary, since Wikipedia doesn't take such questions into account when dismissing as non-notable obscure proposals regarding time dilation and the origins of the universe only discussed in unreliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You realize you just ceded the point that this is a religious topic, right? That makes your critique of the sources as "crackpot" irrelevant and voids your !vote: the sources in the article may not be appropriate for a scientific discourse, but there's nothing obviously wrong with them as religious sources. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are reliable sources--torchbearers, really--for the literalist Genesis/YEC religious perspective, so notability is met unless this is entirely a non-religious topic, which you have just ceded you cannot definitively assess. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You now seem to be claiming that the mere fact that Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis have written about something makes it inherently notable. That is utterly absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religious content can be crackpot. For example, this content. jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the complete lack of coverage in non-creationist sources, and the lack of evidence that this is even significant to creationism, there is nothing to move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. If there's verifiable content--and there is--an appropriate merger is a perfectly valid ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "verifiable content" is there? The fantasies of Young Earth Creationists that no one else even bothers to notice? jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is literally a single WP:RS. That means no significant coverage, as in not notable, and that in fact it’s . We have long used WP:FRINGE to get rid of essays and pages that are little more than gee-whiz trivial nonsense, hey look at this kooky little idea. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar: I am sorry if I misjudged the worthiness of the topic to be on Wikipedia when I created it, I did not intend to promote fringe theories. If I was wrong, then it can just be deleted. I thought that since it is a religious topic and I was able to find multiple religious sources about it, then it could be worth its own article, but I may have been mistaken about their worthiness on such a topic. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to apologize. WP:FRINGE is hard to get right especially as there are often sources that show up about fringe topics which superficially look reasonable (and might be in less, let's say, controversial areas). The general principle that I find works well is that we can have articles on fringe subjects when they are noticed by people who are not convinced that the fringe idea in question is necessarily correct, but where it gets confusing is when you have internecine disputes among fringe claimants so it looks like you have "independent analysis" in the sources when instead you are just looking at different flavors of fringe. Keeping topics out of Wikipedia for which sourcing cannot follow the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding is one of the better solutions we've arrived at to keep the integrity of the reference work high. The alternative is a free-for-all. jps (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that this isn't FRINGE. It's religious. It has "creationism" right there in the title. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its fringe, even for creationism. And it isn't notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research—denialist histories, for example—should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic. Emphasis mine. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've already read that. And quoted it above. Where I pointed out that "mainstream theologians and scientists" have said absolutely nothing on this topic. Which is why it is fringe, why it isn't notable, and why an appropriate encyclopaedic article cannot be written. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It bases articles on secondary sources, removed from the subject itself. Not on a few primary sources arguing the toss about pseudoscientific hokum amongst themselves. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability requirements. Notability is demonstrated through coverage in sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go, man. Your ridiculous misunderstanding is clearly not the consensus understanding of our community. If you want to change our rules, start a conversation elsewhere. jps (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, while I've disengaged, several others have come along and agreed with my perspective. I do not think the consensus is what you think it is. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: While fringe hypotheses can be notable, there isn't enough coverage of this one in WP:RS to warrant a separate article. Any content from this article that's up to standard should be merged/transcluded into one of the other articles on creationism. 0xchase (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies and mention it by name there since the it is the "relativistic effects" mentioned. This comes up in teaching astronomy classes and there is a source:
Bobrowsky, Matthew (2005). "Dealing with Disbelieving Students on Issues of Evolutionary Processes and Long Time Scales". Astronomy Education Review. 4 (1): 95–118. doi:10.3847/AER2005007.
StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Young_Earth_creationism#View_of_the_Bible as a parallel subsection as Interpretations_of_Genesis. The title is a highly specialized jargon that is exclusively related to the field of creationism, and as the article itself claims, it “is a form of the Young Earth creationism”. Given the current shortness of the article, a reader would frequently click back and forth between this and other pages related to creationism for a better understanding. It’s actually easier for readers if the short article be merged with a most relevant and more comprehensive article. Nihonjinatny (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's not clear to be relevant as a standalone idea to merit being talked about. And besides, the only criticism is from other creationists, the article still lacks a mention to the mainstream scientific ideas. And for those saying that "this is religion, not science", that distinction is only relevant on how we write the article. Notability, if we should have an article to begin with, is unconcerned by that. Neither religious nor scientific topics are automatically exempt from the notability guideline just because of their topic. Cambalachero (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect/merge if an appropriate target can be found. Current coverage is not sufficient and I am unable to locate additional coverage which would be either. Not seeing any pressing reasons to believe that such coverage does exist either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Two different Redirect/Merge target articles are being proposed, would there be any consenus on this point? This might be a valid search term.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The only RS I'd consider is 2, the Proceedings, and that's a big "if". Creation.com or Answers from genesis don't strike me as RS, and I don't find anything else that we can use to describe this phenomenon. Gscholar of course has nothing about this, so I'm not sure what we can use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If we must !merge, the creationist cosmologies would be my choice... I don't even think this warrants more than a brief mention there. Deletion is still my choice. Oaktree b (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:FRINGE seems to establish that things like creationism should be evaluated for notability on both a religious and scientific basis. That does not mean they are exempt from the guideline. The only reliable independent source is the Stephen Law chapter on the epistemology of pseudoscience which mentions this in a single sentence as an example of an argument a creationist might make. With respect to those who've suggested a merge, there simply is not anything that meets notability to merge here. Chaste Krassley (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a noteworthy idea in the annals of pseudoscientific ideas. Hanging onto the page as a redirect would be inventing a term where none has been established to exist; "time dilation" is a term that creationists have occasionally invoked to try and make science go away, but time dilation creationism is not a distinct version of creationism. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2024 (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/Time_dilation_creationism&oldid=1244792733"