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 Isaac Newton Vail. Clear consensus to redirect to this article. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annular Theory (Vailan Theory) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non notable fringe topic that has only 1 main proponent. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there don't appear to be independent sources that even comment about this theory. Clearly non-notable. --mikeu ^talk 14:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or weak delete works for me. The new Vail page seems like a good target. --mikeu ^talk 20:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into this more I'm not sure that redirects like Canopy theory, Annular theory, Vailen theory, etc. add much value. Are these really terms that are widely referenced by modern creationists? I don't mind the redirects but I also don't see a compelling need for them to exist.[1][2] As an aside, Isaac Newton Vail is fascinating. I'm glad to see that this didn't fall through the cracks. --mikeu ^talk 15:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Copying from its talk page: No relevance. The article includes two good references for things not related to Vail's invention, one reference to Vail and one reference to a single article discussing it, both over 100 years old. The Wikipedia article is full of misconceptions, misrepresentations of science and so on. --mfb (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This is a poor article on one aspect of Isaac Newton Vail's eccentric thinking. I've had a look and Vail is certainly notable, as a 19th century catastrophist, with a reasonable number of reliable sources such as Armstrong's 1988 'Evolution of Creationism' - yes, there's nutty physics, nutty geology, and creationism all rolled into one sticky ball; Vail is a major figure within Pseudoscience. I've written a short article on Vail and suggest that we Redirect to there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's another possible redirect target at Flood geology#Canopy theory which is also decently cited. Canopy theory redirects there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct seems OK.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirecting to Isaac Newton Vail would be OK, as would deleting outright (the page title is a bit too awkward to be a plausible search term). XOR'easter (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect as outdated non-notable fringe theory WegianWarrior (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Isaac Newton Vail. Flood geology#Canopy theory would be okay too, but there seems to be more support for the former. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Isaac Newton Vail. The section about the theory there has a “further information” link to the relevant section of the flood geology article, so both are covered. Brunton (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Vail article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2019 (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.