Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwinian Theory and Ethical Problems

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 delete. Sr 13 03:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinian Theory and Ethical Problems

Article violates our no original research policy. -- Merope 10:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Heavily breaches WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:A. This is someone's political campaigning. Abortion causes extinction? This article is a load of shit and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research and an essay. Davewild 10:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essay, should be a speedy close per WP:SNOW.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I almost suggested that this be salted as well ... I'm not sure if I see an encyclopedia article in this.--Blueboy 96 12:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 13:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not neutral, and it would require a complete rewrite and retitling to become neutral. The article covering Darwinian theory may be able to fit a sourced paragraph on ethical problems, but it can't be an essay. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Leebo ^T/C 15:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest of the Delete - I'm having a hard time finding a p/g that doesn't support deletion (OR, NPOV, SOAP, ATT, RS, V, N, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ). I would probably like a little salt with my meal. /Blaxthos 15:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hoax. "Puppies are commonly believed to be cute and innocent. But what has evolutionary theory to say about them?" ~ Infrangible 17:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potential hoax. More to the point: the subject itself is nonsensical. Ethical problems may exist regarding how research was conducted or how it was applied, but not so much for the contents of scientific theories themselves. Ante lan ^talk 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and various other policies cited above. --Metropolitan90 20:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The puppies section made mu chuckle though.--Svetovid 21:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for blatent violations of pretty much everything. I agree with HisSpaceResearch, this AfD needs to be Snowballed: having this article remain on Wikipedia in its current form for 5 days would not be a good idea -- what if someone searches for evolution, finds it, and ignores the unassuming grey template at the top? At the very least, I'm going to put the relevent templates on it, in case someone does come across it. -- simxp (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Delete How does this stuff show up? Per everything above, and it's a crock (not sure if there's a wikilink). Orangemarlin 20:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At first glance, this appears to be an unsourced editorial, so it would be eligible for deletion under WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT#SOAP, and WP:NPOV. But the very last section, "Puppies" (which has been there since the first revision), clearly demonstrates that it's all a leg pull, so delete as WP:BJAODN. -Severa (!!!) 02:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jim62sch 17:35, 13 June 2007 (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.