Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of evolution
- 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Wikipedia:POV fork of the evolution page written from the original research perspective of User:Ed_Poor. As such, this article does not belong in Wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 18:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In an attempt to circumvent the AfD process, User:Ed_Poor moved the article to a different namespace. This is very disrespectful of the Wikipedia community. --Joshuaschroeder 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just moved it back - pending resolution of this afd. Vsmith 16:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And now it is gone? Looks like Ed has created a new Wikipedia:WikiProject aspects of evolution hmm... and deleted the original Aspects of evolution? Most irregular I'd say. Vsmith 18:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this allowed? --Joshuaschroeder 18:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In an attempt to circumvent the AfD process, User:Ed_Poor moved the article to a different namespace. This is very disrespectful of the Wikipedia community. --Joshuaschroeder 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is not the last of the self-appointed expert on WP:NPOV Ed's attempts to contravene WP:NPOV to promote pseudoscience. Dunc|☺ 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Edwardian 22:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this was a good-faith effort (and not intentionally POV), but as a practical matter it is written from a specific point of view and is original research, and as such should be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. More silliness by Ed Vsmith 02:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, with regret, unless fixed. Although the nominator is correct, in theory I think this could be fixed if the author could supply good source citations to show that the distinctions he's making are not original. I think it is possible that one could tell almost the same story essentially in the form of linked quotations from recognized authorities. The current debate on evolution is my worst nightmare because it is characterized by dogma and lack of clear thinking and intellectual honesty on both sides. The evolution of animals does not necessarily mean they evolved in exactly the way Charles Darwin, or George Gaylord Simpson, or Stephen Jay Gould said they did, just as the existence of God does not necessarily mean that everything the Bible says about God is true. I guess what I'm saying is that I hate to vote delete on a very good, clear, reasonably neutral essay. In its present state though, it should be deleted for the reason the nominator gives. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- An absolutely textbook case of content forking and it's shameful to see this editor still prone to them. Delete without merge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV brainstorm. Gazpacho 07:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per A Man In Black. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 21:42, 22 November 2005 (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.