Conservapedia:Articles for deletion

Archives: 01

For past decisions see:

• Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/Delete
• Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/Keep

When this page gets too big, we can archive it. Once a month is probably good enough.

---

Current discussions

---

Conservapedia:AFD Premarital sex Conservapedia:AFD Chickendove Conservapedia:AFD Cult Conservapedia:AFD Elephant Conservapedia:AFD Encyclopedia Dramatica Conservapedia:AFD Evolutionism Conservapedia:AFD Fallen angels Conservapedia:AFD George Hammond Conservapedia:AFD Grok Conservapedia:AFD Homer Simpson Conservapedia:AFD Homosexual agenda Conservapedia:AFD Homosexuality Conservapedia:AFD Homosphere Conservapedia:AFD Incest Conservapedia:AFD Leeds United Conservapedia:AFD Massachusetts Liberal

Kept & Locked: 6/16/2007

--Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 03:35, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

NAMBLA

We don't need it. RobS 16:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it could be a good article, but we should get rid of the logo as it somehow gives an air of legitimacy to pedophiles.--JoyousOne 16:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, a completely inarticulate reason. Okay, I say we do. But wait, we can't get rid of the logo, that is their official...thing. I am not a lawyer, but I believe we have every right to use it and ought to. Flippin 16:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Sure, we may have the "right" to use the logo, but I'm sure they have other "official things" that we really don't need to see. We should expand the article, wikify it, and keep the link, but ditch the logo.--JoyousOne 16:28, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed the logo to a thumb--does that help any? Flippin 16:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's have a poll. RobS 16:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Poll

Please vote Keep or Delete and sign.

• Keep--JeffersonDarcy 16:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

• Keep They're scum, but ignoring them won't make them go away. Czolgolz 16:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Keep I don't like them, but since we can't wish them into the corn or hide in the woods until the world ends, we might as well prepare people for a possible encounter. Flippin 16:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Merge with NARAL into new entry NAMBRAL and place in Category:Child predators. RobS 16:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Keep. RobS 21:01, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Maybe you should create an article on NARAL before you want to merge something with it. Your suggestion, as is, doesn't really make much sense. --JeffersonDarcy 16:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
    • I'm undecided on this one; you could learn from this if we decide to keep it. Trust me, you'll think twice before creating an article of this nature before I'm done editing it. RobS 17:02, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Keep but I don't think we should merge the article with NARAL.--Staple^Talk 16:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Keep People should be aware of them. I'm sure there are parents and children out there that have never heard of them before. DrSandstone 16:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

• Keep From a conservative perspective, we can use this to attack the ACLU. DanH 17:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Keep Forewarned is forearmed, let people know them for what they are --Trashbat 17:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Keep but avoid adding links to other organizations except where clearly related. That is, you would be hard-pressed to find citations linking NAMBLA with NARAL, but with the ACLU, that would not be so hard.JoyousOne 17:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Google Pelosi+NAMBLA; 34,000 hits. RobS 17:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

That still doesn't make the link. It is too tenuous to say Pelosi supports gays supports NAMBLA. But if you can find a way to do it...--JoyousOne 17:59, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

"George W. Bush"+NAMBLA gets 29,000. So that's probably not sufficient evidence. Murray 18:02, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

My house got telemarketed by a company that claimed that Ted Kennedy supported NAMBLA because he supports the ACLU (and that we did too because our long distance service donated money to Kennedy). That's too flimsy. The ACLU connection is enough. DanH 19:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete. Stupid people think that Evil can be reasoned with. Evil twists logic and perverts it.--Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete it, and move relevent contents to article Child molesting. Karajou 14:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

• We've discovered NAMBLA's activism is not limited to gay issues. RobS 15:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

• Well, that makes me feel so much better! What about the North American MAN-BOY Love Association isn't homosexual related? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:37, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • NAMBLA Bulletin, Editorial: War in Iraq?, March 2003. The date is particularly significant, as we see now this group provided leadership to the anti-War movement. RobS 17:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

• Keep and Lock This article is useful to warn parents. Geo.Talk 17:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Exotheology

Delete

The entry has nothing to do with the title, save the first sentence. It lacks any proper sources (the ones given don't support what's claimed on the entry at all!) and many claims are speculative or simply opinion. ColinR^talk 00:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Seconded. Most of the material should be merged with UFO. But it looks like Andy and Conservative want to get this one on the front page by tomorrow [1] so who knows? Lambchop 00:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That's the name for the belief in life in outer space. It is from Time magazine, a liberal publication. Do you have a better alternative?--Aschlafly 00:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you sure you don't mean "Exobiology", which even its own enthusiasts admit is a 'science without a subject"? --BobD 00:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Funny, the Time articles cited explicitly refers to exotheology as the theology of outer space, not the belief in ET life. Moreover, the article 's entire point is about the effect ET life could have on God. And even funnier is how the liberal publication's article entire point is how ET life could even reinforce the Christian God. ColinR^talk 01:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete. The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between exotheology and the study of extraterestial (sp?) life. Nevermind the fact that saying alien life is a liberal belief, this article is embarassing to have on the front page.

Delete. The article itself reads very confused, and the passing swipe at a 'liberal belief system' speaks for itself. --Wikinterpreter

My main argument is that this article is certainly not good enough for the front page, where it is currently being referred to from. Embarassing.--PalMD^talk 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete. This article is trash. Exotheology probably doesn't deserve an article. Exobiology certainly deserves a better one. Ga ohoyt 17:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete, or at least fix it. Very little of the article actually addresses the stated subject, which is a form of speculative philosophy, not a science (or pseudoscience). The sources are also kind of lacking. I found a few hits for exotheology through Google and Google Scholar. There's a fair amount of popular information on exotheology, and journal articles by Hoffman and Haught. It shouldn't be hard to write a good exo-t. article. But I wouldn't want to use this as a starting point.--All Fish Welcome 19:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete, article dosnt even define what exotheology is, it allso contains some claims which the citations dont confirm, for example the last one about most scientists doubting existence of life outside earth. Allmost nothing on this article has anything to do with the topic. Timppeli 19:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete. This article is shockingly bad, and an example of hte mocking traffic it brings in can be seen in the section below. Great job putting in the front page :-P -AmesG_yo! 21:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete The article is irrelevant as if there were extraterrestrial life, it would be mentioned in the Bible. -Roofus 00:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Delete Clearly, the (round rubber things that vehicles use and trigger the spam filter hahahahah) grind slowly, and, as this article shows, none-too-finely. I'm so glad it hasn't been deleted yet, though. It warms my heart with glee, it really does. But I still have to vote for 'delete', because really, I like a lot of non-whackjob conservatives. MyaR 23:15, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Delete I had attempted to write something intelligent here (exobiology), which unfortunately was wiped out without even a trace in history by "Conservative" sysop, who then locked it. If Conservapedia wishes to have this article contain some number of paragraphs representing the christian fundamentalist POV, that's great. But to assert a fundamentalist approach to this issue and refuse any other view a hearing, is to exclude the vast majority of American christians and American conservatives, and gives a false picture of conservatism to those who might be taken in. I don't mean to be insulting, but even if the Bible is literally true in every single word, it doesn't define whether or not something is a science or a pseudoscience, both of those being concepts invented long after John wrote the last word of Revelations.

Keep

The author explains the title, and has good sources for it. And the article, by whatever title, has a definite place here.--TerryH^Talk 09:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

We should document the debate about spending vast amounts of money on the ideological crusade which is SETI. Exobiology isn't science at all. Good on Aschlafly for pointing that out. --Pacman 10:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

This is the same argument they made against funding the Columbus expedition. The bible never mentioned any "new world" Lambchop 10:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Nonsense, the exploration of the new world was based on the common sense observation that the world was round and partially unmapped, combined with extrapolating from the observed fact that humans were widespread in the known world. It was entirely reasonable to send ships to trade with and explore the blank bits of the map.

By contrast, exobiologists concoct a fantasy version of space that is the exact opposite of what has been observed. The hard science of it is that the universe is big and empty. --Pacman 12:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Nor did the Bible define the world (cosmos) as limited to the Eurasian-African contiguous land mass. And even the inhabited world (oikoumenes) could stretch to fit.

What the Bible has no warrant for is extraterrestrial nation-states and civilizations. If you want more details, see my article on extraterrestrial life.--TerryH^Talk 12:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

STRONG KEEP Conservative 13:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Care to elaborate on that? Why? Wikinterpreter^talk?

The author does not explain the title at all! The subject of exotheology has nothing to do with "the psuedoscience of ET life." It's about how outer space affects theological issues. Break the word down into its roots, exo and theology. Heck, even the articles cited explicitly state that exotheology is the theology of outer space. Not belief in ET life. ColinR^talk 16:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep. DanH 19:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Leave it up. It shows newbies to the site a VERY good idea what to expect from the rest of it. --BobD 20:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

omigawd. Please, please, please keep this article. I have already copied it because I suspect it will be deleted. I need the proof because my co-workers will not beleive me. You know, some sites have referred to conservapedia as "stupidpedia," and here is the proof! AK1053287

Keep per the two votes above. While some of us run around creating small articles about things in the real world, there is a subset of this site that is "classic". This article is definitely one of them. Human 15:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

• Keep. RobS 17:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

• Why?

Liver

The article on livers confused the liver with the kidney. I think we should start over, or get User:palmd001 to write it. --Ed Poor 09:31, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

• If Liver is deleted, then the original article, entitled Livers should be even more deleted. I see no harm in deleting both of them. Dpbsmith 15:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

If asked, I'll work on it.--PalMD^talk 15:48, 20 April 2007 (EDT)