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 keep. The discussion below indicates that the issue is simply with the state of the article, not the overall verifiability/notability of the topic. --jonny-mt 02:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radiohalo[edit]

Radiohalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Appears to a be a topic of pseudoscience/creationism, lacking sources and explanation of anything.

Redirects: Polonium halos, Polonium halo, and Radiohalos.

• Delete, but allow for creation if anyone can get an article-worthy stub started. Paper45tee (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Cite it. Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was first created in 2002. Isn't 6 years of no scientific citations in a bad, unhelpful, anti-scientific article enough? Paper45tee (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, 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 WP:V 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 been brought to WP:V 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. Nsk92 (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Citations are badly needed and WP:V is an issue. Happyme22 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely should NOT be deleted. 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 Wikipedia. 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! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 had been deleted, I would not have the reference I wanted! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before and as Paper45tee notes below, in its present form the article is a giant WP:V 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 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 deletionpedia. Nsk92 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • If you want it kept then add WP:V 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. Paper45tee (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what you mean by "add WP:V to it". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V 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. --neonwhite user page talk 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliable sources can be provided as evidence of notability. --neonwhite user page talk 22:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 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. DGG (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 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 verifiable. But there are references, so go and confirm or disconfirm. And while you are doing that, please provide in-line citations. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are suggesting here is unreasonable. Listing a "pile of references" without providing inline citations to them is not what WP:V has in mind and does not, in my opinion, constitute compliance with WP:V (in fact, it could even be viewed as an attempt to subvert WP:V 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 unsatisfactory state confirms this. Nsk92 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many of the references were added by User:Filll last year (see this diff). If you believe that his intention was to subvert WP:V 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. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 conveys some meaningful information. But that is far from sufficient in terms of verification of the numerous 'citation needed' tagged statements. Nsk92 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 who is making a claim. It shouldn't be that difficult to track which reference attaches to which statement in the article. Any volunteers? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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... Nsk92 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 author is talking about without having some specialized knowledge. Nsk92 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 young Earth then give a WP:RS. 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. Paper45tee (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What unsupported claims did I add? I added references back in which you deleted, all the while thumping your chest about WP:V 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 verifying the contents of the article. Ok? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia standards. So it's not fair to threaten to delete the article just 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. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 keeping an article. You need to provide evidence of notability here if there are any. --neonwhite user page talk 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 references are in top-notch journals like Science (journal) and Nature (journal). The lack of footnotes notwithstanding, the material in the article is actually relatively easy to verify to anyone willing to follow up on the references listed. Furthermore, apparently this Gentry character has caused quite a flurry in creationist circles, as the Talk.origins 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 does provide evidence of this notability, so your delete rationale simply doesn't gel. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The above notes say that this fails WP:V 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. Razorflame 19:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep. 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:50, 25 May 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.