Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution as theory and fact

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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. PoV is a fixable problem, to which deletion is not the answer. If you have a problem with the article's PoV, I would recommend requests for comment. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution as theory and fact

The article violates the principle of no original research. An indication of that is that only two statements are sourced and both of them have at least seven sources. The article is primarily a rant against those who disagree with evolution. Ezra Wax (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a WP:POINT nomination. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the article is a rant and is original research. --Ezra Wax (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Ezra Wax (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you can't vote for your own proposal. your proposal is a vote in itself ChiragPatnaik (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep too many sources is a bad thing? Did you bother to check them out at all? If you had, you'd notice they're extraordinarily and clearly relevant. Can the article be improved? Sure. But Ezra hasn't offered anything to work with, only various rants on the talk page (here on down). — Scientizzle 03:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is just an essay. Find an appropriate external link and place it at Evolution for this idea. JJL (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, factual, reads well, not an essay, nomination is in bad faith. Could be merged with Evolution article if that doesn't make the Evolution article too large. Shot info (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no WP:OR problem. There are many high quality references to eminent life scientists and other notable scientific opinions published in reliable sources. The article is clearly using these sources in a manner consistent with the authors' intention. Also, I disagree with JJL's characterization of the article as an essay. This is a notable distinction, particularly in creation-evolution polemic, and as such is clearly deserving of its own article. See, for instance, Casey Luskin's report at the Discovery Institute: part 1, part 2. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough references and more. Some sections could be cleaned up a bit, But that in itself is no reason to delete. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; well sourced, encyclopedic. I don't see a problem. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article topic is clearly notable, as evidenced by the citations for its central premise -- and these same sources also provide verification for the body of the article. The accusations of WP:OR are nonspecific and, as such, do not even (as yet) form a basis for altering the article, let alone deleting it wholesale. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rework As is it should be Delete as it is an essay, but its a sub-article to Evolution and covers important information so deleting it will be bad. The references are fabulous but the text is dense and rambles. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I also see this nomination was WP:POINT by an editor who strongly disagrees with the theory of evolution and is using the AfD process as part of a 'battle' against it. Note this quote from the article's talk page also "This page breaks the rule against original research. The opening paragraph has nine sources for one statement. That is by definition original research." The nomination also claims that only two statements are sourced which is simply not true. I ask the closing Admin to look at this nomination carefully as I am convinced it is simply disruptive. Doug Weller (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article factually addresses a misunderstanding that has occurred (and will continue to occur) countless times with respect to evolutionary biology, and does so in the manner of a primer, not an "essay". Furthermore Ezra Wax has failed to substantiate his stated reasons for nominating the page for deletion. Ichneumon (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article, meets WP guidelines. Dlabtot (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is obviously a POV essay as it states its argument in the opening lines and then uses the rest of the article to make its point. Sure, the references are interesting (at least the ones I looked at are), but that does not make the entire missive important as an objective encyclopedia article. Editors interested in these ideas should simply incorporate the references into the Evolution article itself, with some explanation there. But there is no need for this extended argument to be considered an article in Wikipedia.Wikigonish (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't seem like a rant at all to me. Maxa megalon 2000 05:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a clearly explained and arguably necessary article on a notable subject. While there might be some reason for concern about original research, it seems to me that essentially everything in this article has already been said elsewhere (as the various references show) and so there is no part of it that is particularly vulnerable to being challenged as unverified. Terraxos (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, if no one disputes this, why does it exist? If someone disputes it, where is their viewpoint? Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist to catalog "disputes". Primarily its purpose is to provide information. See: WP:NOT. - Ichneumon (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if there's no dispute, again, why is this information provided specifically in the context of evolution? Your assertion, if correct, argues that the information should be merged into theory, fact, or evolution. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blindingly obvious speedy keep. A useful review of how evolution relates to the concepts of theory and fact. I see no sign of the original research, or the "rant", referred to by the nominator. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep a significant topic, the subject of a very recent academic paper which should be used as a reference to improve the article. . . dave souza, talk 07:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - A very easy topic: "Evolution as theory and fact", it is impossible to have any original research. However, it is very important article, which shows a lot of evidence . Raymond "Giggs" K o 09:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic and notable topic; detail article correctly factored out and linked from overview articles such as objections to evolution. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Are we kidding? Well researched and factual. What a waste of time! Why are we even discussing this in an AfD? -- Alexf⁴² 10:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notable paradox, certainly warrants an article. Objectivity is not POV. WilliamH (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Evolution where it merits a paragraph at most. We don't need a huge article on this fine point of language per WP:UNDUE. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Such an important subject in our society should be in Wikipedia. QuantumShadow (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Sadly, evolution has come under attack by ~~intelligent design~~ creationists, hence the need for this article to stay. This article is an encyclopaedic level entry, and discusses very throughly the aspects implied in the title. 67.189.228.127 (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2008 (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.