Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy

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. Renaming, different presentation, ... can be further discussed on the talk page if needed. Fram (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy

The links in this article are contained within the creation-evolution controversy article, as much as necessary. If there is a link that is ever in this article that isn't in the creation-evolution controversy article, then it either doesn't belong in this article, or needs to be added to the CE controversy page. So, the way I see it, the entire point of this article is to collect the links present in a single article. WP:NOT#LINK? Ben (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. I think this list meets the criteria of WP:LIST, which is listed explicitly as an exception in WP:NOT#LINK ("for lists to assist with the organisation of articles"). I suggest renaming it to "List of topics related to..." to follow the common practice for these types of lists. There are several dozen lists with names starting with List of topics... or List of articles.... If you think all of them need to be deleted, perhaps a wider discussion will be needed. --Itub (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not opposed to articles that assist with the organisation of articles. I can't defend all of the articles from the links you provided, but picking one that I would be slightly interested in, List of topics named after Carl Friedrich Gauss is an article I would defend. Topics named after someone is not the same as topics about someone, and I would support the deletion of such an article. List of articles about Gauss? At best, there would be circumstances that would warrant a category. Now, in this case, we have the same problem, a list of topics about a topic, and I think it's a waste of time. I don't see why this list should ever contain links not already in the C-E article. Ben (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a helpful list, not a duplicate or POV fork of creation-evolution controversy.Biophys (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Filll, OrangeMarlin & ScienceApologist have each contributed to building this page. They are to be commended for helping to write neutrally about this conflict, despite their having a strong POV interest. Having a list of articles makes it much easier for contributors to provide neutral content. (Note: there is a similar article that ScienceApologist and I created a couple or three years ago listing evolution-related articses.) All if this is in accord with WP:LIST. It helps make a better encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An extremely good navigational page. If anyone has difficulty with the neutrality of any part of it, the article has a talk page for discussing it. One of our highlights in this difficult subject.DGG (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sorry but I still don't see why the article exists. Biophys and DGG, the neutrality of the article was never mentioned, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up. I have no opinion on the neutrality. I also fail to see how this article is any more useful, or extremely good, or a highlight, compared to the creation-evolution controversy page, so can I get some rationale here please? I would not have started this AfD if I could see why any of those statements were true. Specifically, what can this page offer that the creation-evolution controversy page can not? Ed Poor, I don't see how a list of editors has any bearing on the discussion, and again, I don't know why neutrality is being listed as a reason for keep. If I've read your argument correctly, you're saying this page serves as a tool to help editors keep things neutral. If so, why is it in mainspace? Ben (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation-evolution controversy is an article and is meant for reading and learning. Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy is meant for navigation and is organized by topic, not for complete reading. Think of it as an oversized "see also" section or as a table of contents. That's one of the types of lists that's covered by WP:LIST. Navigation pages are meant to be useful (they are one of the exceptions to the WP:USEFUL "bad argument" example). --Itub (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four types of lists that WP:LIST mentions, the only one that may apply to this article is a glossary, that is, "definitions for specialized terms in a subject area". Lets consider the articles at Category:Glossaries. Each of the glossaries exist to cover long lists of words related to a topic that could not all possibly be covered in an article about the topic. Glossary of alternative medicine is first on the list. Of course, you would not expect to see such a list of terms in the alternative medicine article (for the record, I didn't cherry pick that glossary. The same held for all the others I checked).

Because the creation-evolution controversy article is on such a narrow and focused topic, the only terms that should be listed in the Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy article should already exist at the creation-evolution controversy page. Importantly, since each of these terms exists in the article designed to explain the topic, it will place these terms (with wikilinks for curious readers) within some context. If there is some specialized term that a reader is looking for with respect to either creationism or evolution, then the place to look for that would be at Glossary of creationism or Glossary of evolution (or some such wording).

Instead of deleting this article, I would support it being split into each of those glossaries (Ed Poor already mentioned work on an evolution one somewhere), but either way, a glossary is useless for this single specialised article, and so I think WP:NOT#LINK should trump WP:LIST in this particular AfD. Ben (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a category: would be much more useful that way. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 10:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many rationales articulated above. John254 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ed Poor and DGG. BusterD (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Clearly a useful collection of articles for navigation by, but... surely this would be more usefully presented as a template or a category? Terraxos (talk) 05:36, 15 February 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.