Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deistic 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 was keep. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deistic evolution

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article copied from a website with a self-proclaimed POV that is admittedly incompatible with WP:NPOV (see RW:SPOV.) There is an active copyright tag on the page, which could be addressed by applying Creative Commons attribution, but since RationalWiki acknowledges the fact that their content is incompatible with Wikipedia's policies, I'm thinking deletion is the best way to resolve this matter. Note that this page has been problematic since the early 2000s, with editors repeatedly recreating POV forks here. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here’s RationalWiki’s copyright page — CC-BY-SA3.0. That not compatible? Otherwise clearly notable topic. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The license is legally compatible, but to comply would require linking to a self-proclaimed non-neutral source, and stating that we copied the content from that source. At that point, we might as well just throw WP:NPOV out the window. I would lean toward a complete deletion and a compete rewrite. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn’t mean a page from that site can’t still be NPOV. This one’s fine. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with respect to the rationales named by the nom. RationalWiki's licensing is entirely compatible with porting content - CC-BY-SA3.0 is what WP uses itself. So I don't know where these copyright concerns come from? - As for the topic, trivially shown to be notable. The article itself isn't in half bad shape either - could use a little more NPOVing of the language, but if anything it may be tending a little too much into apologetics (somewhat amazing for material coming from RationalWiki). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elmidae. The licensing appears to be compatible. Guettarda (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Licensing is compatible, and the topic is notable, so it should be kept. Maybe POV can be improved, but that does not warrant the deletion. William2001^(talk) 20:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' - As above. Deletion is not the way to fix the issue. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2019 (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.