Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution is a fact

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. Punkmorten 22:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork, for a minor creationist slogan, and not a common search term. One of many such forks from author. FeloniousMonk 15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain in what way it is a POV fork? For example, has it been tagged for {pov} problems? Or does it emphasize or hide anything in a biased way? --Uncle Ed 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; besides, nobody would search for an article with this name. NawlinWiki 15:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and merge referenced material into relevant articles. Vsmith 15:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect after merge is complete. --Uncle Ed 15:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge to where? FeloniousMonk 19:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yep, basic POV fork. Gazpacho 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's helpful that Ed has highlighted the lack of sources in that section of the controversy article, but why can't he add them there? Gazpacho 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge into controversy article. •Jim62sch• 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the article can be deleted. A few sentances and points can find a home Creation-evolution controversy as footnotes.--Roland Deschain 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems a merge of relevant content into Creation-evolution controversy has been done. Vsmith 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Create a redirect, since merges end in redirects, then delete the redirect, fails WP:NPOV. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No new infomation, useless pov fork. No suprise looking at who made the article.Rorrenig 07:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Ed back to his old games — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs)
• Delete - phrases are rarely encyclopaedic, and this one definitely isn't. Guettarda 15:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV fork ... Creation-evolution controversy is sufficient. --Dennette 17:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as another POV fork by the user Goatan 14:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: After it's deleted, I will check to ensure all the new info in this article was merged into at least one other article. I still don't think the distinction between "fact" and "theory" has been clarified. --Uncle Ed 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus was to just delete. Punkmorten 22:25, 2 September 2006 (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.