To answer this meta-question, we have to avoid considering whether the deleted answers are "correct", and look to see if they have a substantial argument.
This answer has four parts:
Claim that evolution is not scientific. (Note: Not merely that it is wrong, but it isn't scientific.) Provides no evidence. This section should be removed as opinion.
Link to a web site that is now defunct. Unfortunately, the answer did not quote from the site or give a reasonable summary of its arguments, so this also needs to be removed. [Quote from your sources, kids.]
A link to an unpeer-reviewed article by an MD, with a claim that it supports a 6,500 year old Earth. I have NOT read this article. I tried skimming it, and it is poorly structured so it is difficult to immediately see if it actually supports this argument. [Quote from your sources, kids.] This section could plausibly remain, but hopefully someone with more time will go through and confirm whether it does support this argument.
Questions for Evolutionists, which should be removed.
So, if this answer is to be saved, it should be edited down to two lines (and then heavily downvoted into oblivion; one unpublished paper isn't enough to overturn the consilience.)
This answer provides three links to creationist sites, without explaining their argument or suggesting where in these large sites we should look. This is equivalent to linking to Wikipedia and saying "look for it in here."
There is no substance worth saving.
This provides four arguments:
An absurd (unreferenced) statement suggesting that we should expect written chronologies from 25K years ago. This is a strawman argument - no theory of an old earth predicts old writing, and there is plenty of non-linguist evidence of older civilisations. This should be removed.
A link (with little context) for Helium evidence. It is debunked in the comments, which is fine.
A claim about global flood myths in "all ancient cultures" which needs a reference (and confusingly must include those cultures older than 6,000 years to be true!) If this remains, it should be marked as needing a reference.
A claim that the moon is young, which we have already covered ourselves. I guess that can remain, but we should have a comment referring to the fuller argument.
This is the bizarrest answer of all. It argues that, rather than created 6,000 years ago, or evolved 200,000 years ago, Humans have been around for millions of years. This would probably make an interesting Skeptics.SE question by itself.
Unfortunately, the evidence isn't presented in the answer; it gives no reason to believe it. I don't think it contributes to question very much.