Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfossilized dinosaur bones

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:58, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Unfossilized dinosaur bones

Hopelessly POV article containing no scientific facts, and a lot of nonsense (using Carbon Dating to date something millions of years old, for example), written by a creationist whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been for POV pushing and for pasting links to his website. The article is about a subject that is probably not notable enough to split from the main Dinosaur article and which would be pretty impossible to cleanup and use. The concensus of the long-time editors of the Dinosaur article seems to have been to redirect it, but the creationist continues to add the nosense. Joe D (t) 22:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, this is creationist bullshit. Crotalus horridus 22:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Let It Remain -- as it seems to be based on (what may be) good evidence. --Truthteller 22:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This contributor may be the creator of the article. It was created by 66.159.217.56, which looks to be part of the same IP pool. (Truthteller's comment, before he signed it, was listed as coming from the IP address 66.159.217.9.) Crotalus horridus 22:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article itself is signed by Truthteller. Joe D (t) 23:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dinosaur bones 9,000 years old? →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 22:58, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
Delete. Patent nonsens, probably should have been a speedy delete Tannin 23:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why Not Discuss it -- from a Scientific perspective -- why you feel the way you do. In other words, what scientific Evidence do you disagree with? Or are you simply allowing your Bias to dictate what evidence you will accept and what you won't -- whether it be the truth or not.--Truthteller 23:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because we have done this on Talk:Dinosaur and other talk pages and you have completely ignored our comments. If you showed any willingness to discuss things from a scientific perpective perhaps others would not treat you as a troll. Joe D (t) 23:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What Nonesense: Joe D. says it is "nonesense" but doesn't give any reasons why he feels this way. So what specifically are you talking about??? Or are you Afraid to discuss it??? --Truthteller 23:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have discussed this on various talk pages and I have seen others discuss this with you on other websites. Not only that but I did give a reason, please make sure you read things properly before you go throwing around accusations. See the Carbon Dating comment, I know you understand why it's nonsense as myself and others have explained it to you several times before. Joe D (t) 23:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You also said it contained "no scientific facts" -- which is blatantly FALSE. --Truthteller 23:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Though it does present some information as fact (whether or not it is fact is debateable), most of the article is just a directory of weblinks more than anything else. The number of statements in this article that are meant to be factual are actually very few. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 23:40, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
  - The only content of the article is the Carbon Dating claim. That Carbon Dating found those ages may be a fact, but for reasons already explained to you many many times already it is not scientific because Carbon Dating is not used for dating things over 50,000 years old--if it is misused in this way it invariably finds an age of about 50,000, as indeed it did in this case. Joe D (t) 23:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Prune, merge into Young Earth Creationism and redirect. RickK 23:28, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Presumably under the heading "Dishonest use of carbon dating". But are you sure people using the search box to look for unfossilised dinosaur bones should be taken straight to the YEC page? Joe D (t) 23:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anti-fact propaganda. Fredrik | talk 00:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to bird (which as we all know are unfossilised and have bones!). Pseudoscience, which while not itself is ground for deletetion, if presented as a discussion of a phenomenon (such as the creationism or pre-Copernicus astronomy pages are), but this is presented as POV fact. Sabine's Sunbird 00:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE, fancruft. DarthProject2501a 00:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. --nixie 04:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 06:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. Martg76 08:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely delete all creationist bullshit. — Trilobite (Talk) 08:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anybody who knows anything about carbon dating will tell you this is either sheer incompetence or a deliberate fraud. This is also a violation of Wikipedia convention in that it consists almost entirely of external links pushing a POV. Average Earthman 08:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. Quale 08:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable, possible hoax. Implicitly POV. AlexTiefling 13:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BS -- AlexR 15:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All we should be concerned with at this point is whether or not it is true. If it is then, sooner or later we will HAVE to Deal with this honestly and fairly, or else risk losing our own credibility. Also, at this point the page is only linked to the Discussion Page, and it is not highly visible. Annonymous

Yeah, well, should these ever become scientific and verifyable facts, then nobody will object to such an article. I'm not holding my breath, though. -- AlexR 15:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment by 164.230.99.101 (talk · contributions) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV, unverifiable, no potential to become encyclopedic. There doesn't appear to be any new-and-valid content worth merging to Young earth creationism or other articles. I have to believe the accusations of "POV-pushing" since the editor rejected talk-page consensus and refuses to accept that radiocarbon dating doesn't give meaningful results beyond 50K years ago. Linked content (used as substitute for actually providing verifiable content) is mostly to non-peer-reviewed unscientific advocacy, not reputable journals useable as primary sources. Barno 20:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Barno. JamesBurns 10:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear Delete this article. Maybe someone can create a subcategory for it under Creationist Pseudo-science. --Fazdeconta 12:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV unencyclopaedic. Leanne 05:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV or nonsense. For the sake of disputing the article's "factual" contentions, note that Carbon-14 testing is useless on items over 200,000 years of age, as Carbon has completely decayed by that time. Xoloz 18:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Prune, merge into Young Earth Creationism and redirect. I copied it from a user above, but I think that the content here should be merged with YOung Earth Creationism. --Alphachimp 02:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep it.. comment by 138.163.0.41 -- Reminder: Anonymous votes do not count.

moved comment by User:Truthteller to talk page Project2501a 20:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Truthteller notes that most of those demanding it be Deleted provide no logical reasoning for doing so -- other than that it goes against their own POV. Stating it is POV or "nonsense" does NOT make it so.--66.218.59.87 04:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unsupported by verifiable evidence. Kelly Martin 04:10, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Lacks the bare minimum of rationality needed to make any article valid.--MWAK 08:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.