Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unguided evolution

Unguided evolution

The article is a WP:FORK of evolution from a perspective of creationists. The idea of "unguided evolution" is one that is claimed to be an atheist scientific view that eschews god.

No, actually an scientific view that eschews God's intervention. Either you know this, and are deliberately lying, or you (like many of our readers) are unaware of the distinction, in which case this is a highly valuable article!

It is a creationist neologism, unsupported by any citations that refer to it as a term and is serving as another platform for User:Ed Poor to conduct original research on the subject of creationism.

So is Intelligent design a creationist neologism, and we have an article on that.

If you need more citations than are in the article, more can be supplied. There is no Wikipedia policy which says that an article which has an insufficient number of citations should be deleted. How many do you personally require, before you would withdraw your request for deletion?

I have asked you repeatedly to explain what you mean by original research and/or how any of the evolution terminology articles I've worked on in the last month or so constitute "original research" - you have never answered, merely told me peremptorily to read WP:NOR. Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? I wish you would stop accusing me of things without providing any reasoning or evidence!

The article has no content worth saving save for a few points that are already found on the various pages this one forks from (e.g. creationism, creation science, intelligent design, evolution, and creation-evolution controversy). --Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have asked you at least a dozen times to show where points you said are worth saving are already to be found on pages such as those you list above. You have never answered these queries. And if the info is worthy of inclusion in these hard-to-find places, why should it not be consolidated in one place? Only an someone pushing an anti-Creationist POV would want to censor this sort of information. Pushing any POV is grounds for a block. I think you already know this; but if you don't, I'm telling you now - officially - as an Admin.

• Invalid request - template will be removed, and page locked. This is a matter for an RFC. It doesn't matter whether I'm "involved" or not, this is a matter of Wikipedia founding principles. Uncle Ed, closing administrator 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I asked Ed whether he was in fact closing the AfD debate on IRC, and he said he wasn't. The Land 16:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Content forking/POV forking is not OK here. If this is Ed again, he's now done this what, three times? More? More than enough, anyway. This is troll behavior, and as such is conduct unbecoming to an administrator. --FOo 05:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as completely unnecessary page... It's just another way of saying regular old evolution, the article contains nothing of any eductional value that isn;t already found in one or more of the many other articles on evolution and/or creationists opposing it. DreamGuy 05:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. FeloniousMonk 06:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if this isn't a POV fork, I'm not sure what is. --Brendanfox 06:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as necessary as Guided creation. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure POV fork, with a nice dose of OR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per Joshuaschroeder. Neologism. --JPotter 08:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (this is one of six POV forks, btw, most of which have been redirected) — Dunc|☺ 14:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - keep up the bitching, and I'll start using the block button. Rob Church ^Talk 15:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems to be a good, well researched description of some largely theological views of evolution. As non-mainstream science, they don't really merit much coverage in evolution, and they don't belong in creationism either. It may be that a merge with other articles would be advisable, but that's an editing matter. There is no good reason for deletion here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a POV fork of evolution; an attempt to shift the concept widely known as "evolution" to a new name (one that is little used; it only gets 650 odd Google hits despite all the screeds written on this topic, suggesting that it's something of a neologism) to support the intelligent design POV. Furthermore, all this content is already covered in the evolution article. Ambi 15:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. However, it seems to be used by "the people out there", so i think "Unguided Evolution" may at least be mentioned and described in Evolution. Nazgjunk - - Signing is ^{for Whimps} 15:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ignoring the personality issues, this is a subject (even if a controversial one), we should have an article on it. The Land 16:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)