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 Selective merge to Institute for Creation Research. There is clear consensus against a standalone article. I will redirect the title; any merge-worthy content can be retrieved from the history. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RATE project

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This probably can be redirected to the Institute for Creation Research as a failed research project that was neither peer-reviewed nor really has had any impact beyond the parochial world of Christians who worry that their interpretations of the bible might be contradicted by science. Brief mention of this can be had in other articles, but as stand-alone, this is essentially WP:SOAP for this eye-rollingly ludicrous project. jps (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move whatever is notable, as nominated. GPinkerton (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY applies to the subjects of articles, not to bits of their content. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing seems easily to meet WP:GNG with various critical papers, even though most or all are from other Creationist perspectives. POV is very evident in the nom, which is not helpful. This should be proposed as a merge rather than a delete, but that doesn't seem necessary to me. I don't believe WP:SOAP applies at all - which heading is meant? This has been around for some years, & is well-referenced for the area. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what "critical papers" are you referring to? All of these are essentially vanity publications to creationists who are pretending to publish under peer review but instead are just go through the cargo cult science motions. There are research programs that are better funded, more successful, with dozens of actual peer reviewed papers, and legitimately housed at institutions of higher learning that we do not have Wikipedia articles on because they are not notable. How is this nonsense notable? jps (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Institute for Creation Research, this was a non-notable research project funded not by scientists but by pseudoscientists, and which is sourced mostly to other pseudoscientific creationists pretending to be legitimate, who are not reliable sources by their very nature. What coverage is left is clearly not enough to establish notability. Article is also written terribly and with no regard for WP:UNDUE. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky. This obvious fraud has received very little discussion in the reality-based literature, but very little is not none. In the end I think this is probably best smerged to the ICR article, but if it remains as standalone it needs to be purged of self-references and unreliable sources. Guy (help!) 08:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Institute for Creation Research. I've been trying to think of the best course of action here for a while, and I think Guy is on the mark. XOR'easter (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2020 (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.