Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument from poor design
- 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 keep. John254 00:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Argument from poor design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Nominating for deletion because the name of the article consitutes original research. The phrase "argument from poor design" does not appear in any cited source, gets zero hits on Google Scholar, and gets only hits that derive from Wikipedia on Google Web. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a well-written article, but it should probably be renamed to dysteleological argument (currently a redirect), which seems to be more widely used, at least according to google hits. It has some general citations but could use more specific citations for each point to satisfy WP:NOR. Amazinglarry (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename per amazinglarry. The article could use some better sources however.Nrswanson (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article has been in AfD before (sorry, I don't think I marked it correctly when submitting). It was saved for the reasons given above, but nothing ever happened. It seems that an actual deletion is the only thing that will change this. Note that "dysteleological argument" also gets zero Google Scholar hits, although it does get apparently independent web hits. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable argument against the existence of God, well written article. JIP | Talk 18:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR, not notable. Gnixon (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep valid argument, notable by mentions in books by Darwin and Dawkins. Article quite well written. Don't rename - no one will look up "dysteleological argument" as the wording is too obscure. I don't even know what the first word means. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 19:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename per above. It does appear to have valid citations, but I do think the article needs cleanup and there is some original research in the article, but the article's subject is not just something WP:MADEUP - it is apparently notable.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - well-written article on significant argument with adequate sourcing. Leave name as is, per User:Escape Artist - clearer than suggested alternative. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - well written and well sourced article on notable argument used by Dawkins, Gould et al. No opinion on correct name beyond noting that a misnamed article is not a reason for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per everyone. I added the dysteleological argument name in a more prominent place in the lead. --GRuban (talk) 17:27, 11 August 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.