283:. I came to this article because a creationist was trying to convince me that radiohalos prove that the Earth is young. He sent me a book talking about it. So it was very helpful to be able to look up the subject on Knowledge. These radiohalos EXIST, and it's a very interesting subject. By the way, the article does give sources, I even added one myself a few weeks ago. If you don't like the article, improve it yourselves. Once it's deleted, all the work is lost. It would be a crime to delete this article just because some people think it's a creationist thing!
504:. The main problem is with the lack of in-text citations. There is a pile of references at the end of the article (or was, until all of those written by the main proponent were inexplicably deleted by the nom). Someone with enough time and interest needs to go through these references and attempt to provide proper citations for the article. Remember that lack of in-text citations is not a deletion rationale. The relevant policy is that the article be
738:
because people like me and "silly rabbit" don't take it upon ourselves to improve the article. Why can't you who want to delete it fix it instead of complaining? (And fixing it does not mean deleting the references!) By the way, I do not believe in a "young Earth" and I think the subject of radiohalos is fascinating in its own right.
737:
I don't see why the burden of improving this article should be on us who think it should be kept. The article is important for various reasons. It's not our fault that it was written in a way that doesn't exactly conform to
Knowledge standards. So it's not fair to threaten to delete the article just
324:
disaster which can't stand on its own and has been this way for 6 years. If you can revise the article quickly to make it into something reasonable, fine. Otherwise, I'd suggest that you copy the current text to some subpage in your user space and work on it there slowly. If deleted now, the article
297:
P.S. I just discovered the push for deletion because I came back to this article to get a reference, in connexion with evidence for a super-heavy nuclide. This was prompted by an article I read recently whose authors claim to have found such a nuclide. Nothing to do with creationism. If this article
773:
There is plenty of evidence of notability. Have you checked out the references in the article? I'm currently in the process of improving the citation style in the article, but your bald assertions that the article is unreferenced or that its subject is not notable simply do not hold. Some of the
597:
No, I was making a general statement. In fact, in this particular case the references, as they are/were arranged, do mean something, since, at least at some point, they were separated into categories "Disputing a young earth interpretation" and "Favoring a young earth interpretation" which actually
239:
is a bigger problem. From looking at the article, it is really hard to figure out the context or what is really going on here. Loads of 'citations needed' tags and unverified data in the article and only a couple of direct citations. Six years on WP is more than enough time for this article to have
752:
An afd isn't a permanent decision on a subject, articles can be recreated later on if sources become available. An article can also be copied to a user page to preserve any text but the point of an afd is to determine whether an article should be kept, what it might happen is never an argument for
652:
On a second attempt, it sounds like the author of that paper is putting forward an alternative explanation for the existence of halos from that proposed by Gentry. Something about "migration" of lead under high temperature conditions or some such thing. Still very difficult to understand what the
550:
requirements). Finding all of these references, reading them and then trying to figure out which if any statements from the article they confirm places an unreasonable burden on the editors attempting verification. The fact that the article has been on WP for 6 years and it is still in such an
325:
can be re-created later then. You/we can also leave a note to the closing admin here. In situations like this the closing admin is usually willing to provide the deleted content to some-one who is asking for it in order to re-create a better version of the article. Finally, there is always the
612:
I would be happy to help supply some citations, but my institution lacks an online subscription to Nature and
Science, so it's sort of inconvenient. But it doesn't look like such a chore. The article isn't that long, and much of it at least indicates
860:. A clearly encyclopedic subject, which is the the subjects of books and papers, and a controversy. That it is currently badly referenced, doesn't mean it's unverifiable. The books and papers mentioned could be used for this.
458:
a really major aspect of young-earth creationism. They use this example a great deal in their discussions, and there are sources available. We should take the opportunity to write a decent unbiased article. That;s our role.
794:
archives dedicates some space to debunking his claims, and on the other side of the fence, Creationists have also used the work of Gentry as part of the R.A.T.E. project. It all seems fairly notable to me, and the article
244:
standards. The article can't really stand as it is. If someone knowledgeable about the subject can produce a reasonable stub while this AfD is open, it could be kept. Otherwise, better to delete the whole thing.
637:
I downloaded the 1975 paper (its very short) from "Nature" called "Spectacle haloes" that is mentioned in the article. But it is written in a terse technical jargon and I can't make heads from tails there...
711:
here at this AfD. My edit summary indicated that, if you want to change the section title, then that's fine. But the references you removed appear to be quite important ones from the perspective of
685:. After all, science considers a young Earth to be non-science. Your revert is a fine example of why this should be deleted: claims are unsourced, unsupported and dubious in nature.
677:
Also do not revert the removal of unsupported claims. If you want something left in, the burden of proof is on you to back it up. If you really think legitimate journals support a
832:
when in fact, it doesn't. Sure, it doesn't have any internal citations, but deletion isn't the answer to that problem; finding references and citations for it is the solution.
143:
480:
404:
is a page that outlines wikipedia policy on sourcing of articles, i believe the editor meant that the article needs some sources that comply with that policy. --
357:
to it and I'll withdraw the nomination. Until that happens it remains a loosely organized collection of uncited anti-science ramblings; there's nothing to save.
235:, unless before the end of this AfD someone does a major revision of the article. Ordinarily, I would say that notability is a primary concern but in this case
577:
and undermine the article, then perhaps he can be contacted to supply the missing citations. My understanding is that he remains quite an active
Wikipedian.
598:
conveys some meaningful information. But that is far from sufficient in terms of verification of the numerous 'citation needed' tagged statements.
538:
I think what you are suggesting here is unreasonable. Listing a "pile of references" without providing inline citations to them is not what
617:
is making a claim. It shouldn't be that difficult to track which reference attaches to which statement in the article. Any volunteers?
786:
to anyone willing to follow up on the references listed. Furthermore, apparently this Gentry character has caused quite a flurry in
17:
65:
110:
105:
114:
865:
97:
884:
36:
883:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
806:
743:
722:
624:
584:
523:
380:
303:
288:
48:. The discussion below indicates that the issue is simply with the state of the article, not the overall
861:
491:
841:
782:. The lack of footnotes notwithstanding, the material in the article is actually relatively easy to
764:
690:
686:
446:
415:
362:
358:
221:
217:
201:
187:
183:
869:
852:
814:
768:
747:
730:
694:
662:
647:
632:
607:
592:
560:
531:
495:
470:
450:
419:
384:
366:
338:
307:
292:
275:
254:
225:
207:
191:
79:
271:
72:
216:. Isn't 6 years of no scientific citations in a bad, unhelpful, anti-scientific article enough?
800:
775:
739:
716:
618:
578:
517:
376:
299:
284:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
779:
487:
320:
As I said before and as Paper45tee notes below, in its present form the article is a giant
833:
761:
658:
643:
603:
556:
443:
412:
334:
250:
753:
keeping an article. You need to provide evidence of notability here if there are any. --
267:
161:
101:
466:
165:
57:
791:
682:
799:
provide evidence of this notability, so your delete rationale simply doesn't gel.
131:
829:
787:
783:
712:
708:
678:
574:
547:
543:
539:
505:
401:
372:
354:
321:
263:
241:
236:
151:
53:
49:
654:
639:
599:
566:
552:
330:
246:
169:
93:
85:
182:, but allow for creation if anyone can get an article-worthy stub started.
461:
435:
unless reliable sources can be provided as evidence of notability. --
542:
has in mind and does not, in my opinion, constitute compliance with
516:. And while you are doing that, please provide in-line citations.
653:
author is talking about without having some specialized knowledge.
877:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
326:
546:(in fact, it could even be viewed as an attempt to subvert
298:
had been deleted, I would not have the reference I wanted!
570:
213:
138:
127:
123:
119:
573:). If you believe that his intention was to subvert
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
887:). No further edits should be made to this page.
565:Actually, many of the references were added by
154:, lacking sources and explanation of anything.
8:
699:What unsupported claims did I add? I added
481:list of Science-related deletion discussions
774:references are in top-notch journals like
707:, all the while thumping your chest about
150:Appears to a be a topic of pseudoscience/
479:: This debate has been included in the
828:. The above notes say that this fails
508:. But there are references, so go and
7:
551:unsatisfactory state confirms this.
371:I don't know what you mean by "add
715:the contents of the article. Ok?
24:
281:Definitely should NOT be deleted
262:Citations are badly needed and
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
353:If you want it kept then add
904:
880:Please do not modify it.
870:22:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
853:19:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
815:15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
769:14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
748:09:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
731:22:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
695:18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
663:23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
648:22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
633:22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
608:22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
593:22:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
561:11:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
532:05:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
496:00:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
471:23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
451:22:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
420:13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
385:10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
367:21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
339:21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
308:20:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
293:20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
276:17:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
255:04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
226:02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
208:02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
192:01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
80:02:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
212:The article was first
701:references back in
44:The result was
776:Science (journal)
767:
498:
484:
449:
418:
56:of the topic. --
895:
882:
862:Martijn Hoekstra
811:
810:
803:
790:circles, as the
780:Nature (journal)
760:
759:
756:
727:
726:
719:
629:
628:
621:
589:
588:
581:
528:
527:
520:
485:
475:
442:
441:
438:
411:
410:
407:
240:been brought to
206:
204:
141:
135:
117:
77:
70:
62:
34:
903:
902:
898:
897:
896:
894:
893:
892:
891:
885:deletion review
878:
808:
807:
801:
757:
754:
724:
723:
717:
626:
625:
619:
586:
585:
579:
569:last year (see
525:
524:
518:
439:
436:
408:
405:
214:created in 2002
202:
200:
137:
108:
92:
89:
73:
66:
58:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
901:
899:
890:
889:
873:
872:
855:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
735:
734:
733:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
535:
534:
499:
473:
453:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
369:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
313:
312:
311:
310:
278:
257:
230:
229:
228:
194:
176:
175:
174:
173:
162:Polonium halos
148:
147:
88:
83:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
900:
888:
886:
881:
875:
874:
871:
867:
863:
859:
856:
854:
851:
850:
847:
844:
840:
839:
836:
831:
827:
824:
823:
816:
812:
804:
798:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
772:
771:
770:
766:
763:
751:
750:
749:
745:
741:
736:
732:
728:
720:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
664:
660:
656:
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
636:
635:
634:
630:
622:
616:
611:
610:
609:
605:
601:
596:
595:
594:
590:
582:
576:
572:
568:
564:
563:
562:
558:
554:
549:
545:
541:
537:
536:
533:
529:
521:
515:
511:
507:
503:
500:
497:
493:
489:
482:
478:
474:
472:
468:
464:
463:
457:
454:
452:
448:
445:
434:
431:
430:
421:
417:
414:
403:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:deletionpedia
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
309:
305:
301:
296:
295:
294:
290:
286:
282:
279:
277:
273:
269:
266:is an issue.
265:
261:
258:
256:
252:
248:
243:
238:
234:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
210:
209:
205:
199:but Cite it.
198:
195:
193:
189:
185:
181:
178:
177:
171:
167:
166:Polonium halo
163:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
153:
145:
140:
133:
129:
125:
121:
116:
112:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
90:
87:
84:
82:
81:
78:
76:
71:
69:
63:
61:
55:
51:
50:verifiability
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
879:
876:
857:
848:
845:
842:
837:
834:
825:
802:siℓℓy rabbit
796:
792:Talk.origins
740:Eric Kvaalen
718:siℓℓy rabbit
704:
700:
681:then give a
620:siℓℓy rabbit
614:
580:siℓℓy rabbit
519:siℓℓy rabbit
513:
509:
501:
476:
460:
455:
432:
377:Eric Kvaalen
300:Eric Kvaalen
285:Eric Kvaalen
280:
259:
232:
196:
179:
149:
74:
67:
59:
45:
43:
31:
28:
858:strong keep
788:creationist
705:you deleted
679:young Earth
488:Fabrictramp
260:Weak delete
160:Redirects:
152:creationism
687:Paper45tee
567:User:Filll
514:disconfirm
506:verifiable
359:Paper45tee
218:Paper45tee
203:Trees Rock
184:Paper45tee
170:Radiohalos
54:notability
826:Weak keep
762:user page
713:verifying
571:this diff
444:user page
413:user page
268:Happyme22
94:Radiohalo
86:Radiohalo
375:to it".
144:View log
510:confirm
111:protect
106:history
784:verify
703:which
433:Delete
233:Delete
180:Delete
168:, and
139:delete
115:delete
758:white
683:WP:RS
655:Nsk92
640:Nsk92
600:Nsk92
553:Nsk92
440:white
409:white
331:Nsk92
247:Nsk92
142:) – (
132:views
124:watch
120:links
60:jonny
16:<
866:talk
830:WP:V
809:talk
797:does
778:and
765:talk
755:neon
744:talk
725:talk
709:WP:V
691:talk
659:talk
644:talk
627:talk
604:talk
587:talk
575:WP:V
557:talk
548:WP:V
544:WP:V
540:WP:V
526:talk
502:Keep
492:talk
477:Note
467:talk
456:Keep
447:talk
437:neon
416:talk
406:neon
402:WP:V
381:talk
373:WP:V
363:talk
355:WP:V
335:talk
322:WP:V
304:talk
289:talk
272:talk
264:WP:V
251:talk
242:WP:V
237:WP:V
222:talk
197:Keep
188:talk
128:logs
102:talk
98:edit
46:keep
835:Raz
615:who
512:or
486:--
483:.
462:DGG
868:)
846:am
843:fl
838:or
813:)
746:)
729:)
693:)
661:)
646:)
631:)
606:)
591:)
559:)
530:)
494:)
469:)
383:)
365:)
337:)
329:.
306:)
291:)
274:)
253:)
224:)
190:)
164:,
130:|
126:|
122:|
118:|
113:|
109:|
104:|
100:|
864:(
849:e
805:(
742:(
721:(
689:(
657:(
642:(
623:(
602:(
583:(
555:(
522:(
490:(
465:(
379:(
361:(
333:(
302:(
287:(
270:(
249:(
220:(
186:(
172:.
146:)
136:(
134:)
96:(
75:t
68:m
64:-
52:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.