Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guided 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 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same. I had it redirect to evolutionary creationism, but yah, OR. — Dunc|☺ 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- another POV-fork by User:Ed Poor. --ScienceApologist 16:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's not a POV fork, because it does not push for any particular point of view. Please see the distinction which Wikipedia:Content forking makes. And if it contains inaccuracies, please correct them instead of nominating the entire article for deletion - which simply wastes everybody's time. The whole point is to make a balanced (i.e., NEUTRAL) account of what religious people think about evolution. Uncle Ed 16:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It pushes the POV of User:Ed Poor who cannot seem to bring himself to edit the articles on the subject (say evolutionary creationism). --ScienceApologist 16:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - POV-fork, it is also said much better in other places on Wikipedia. --Davril2020 17:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - better said elsewhere on Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 17:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We have Theistic evolution already. Pilatus 18:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ed tries to explain why his personal essay is not POV enough to be a POV fork; this is absolutely irrelevant. What he needs to explain and doesn't seem to want to is why this article deserves to exist when the subject is already covered on Wikipedia. Ed is in fact using a classic POV-forking trick: select an alternate name for an existing subject which should be a redirect but turn it into an article expressing your own POV on the matter instead. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Ed, this isn't funny anymore. Please stop using article space a place to put your own essays. Friday (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Guided evolution isn't a religious idea solely—or at all. It is overwhelmingly more often linked to planetary seeding than religious views. The article fails to be accurate at the first sentence, and then just rambles on without any attempt to place the idea in context or with reference to other ideas of development. User:Noisy | Talk 19:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I just don't see the point of this article. It's full of misconceptions about evolution, and frankly, I wouldn't want anyone who didn't already know about this issue to read this article as a source of information. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 19:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is all getting beyond a joke. The Land 19:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What next? Misguided evolution? Jtmichcock 03:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is there any way to stop these pages from continuing to crop up? Someone should create a List of POV forks or something. Oh wait, I guess Special:Contributions/Ed Poor already has that covered. -Parallel or Together ? 11:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Theistic evolution. One of many spawned by the creationist meme, undoubtedly under the belief that replication quantity equals veracity. :) — RJH 20:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's evolution by natural selection, clearly: they're hoping that random mutations of phrases will produce new memes, and the fittest ones will survive. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and sanction the creator. It's becoming clear to me that Ed Poor's reputation as a fair-minded advocate for NPOV is almost entirely self-proclaimed. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. Respectfully respect creator to stop creating personal essays. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, misguided personal essay. Gazpacho 03:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasoning see last 8 POV forks created by this editor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same. I had it redirect to evolutionary creationism, but yah, OR. — Dunc|☺ 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what part of this article you feel violates Wikipedia's "no original research" policy.

Or if it should be a redirect, as you previously had it, why did you nominate it for deletion? What info does it contain which you feel is non-encyclopedic? Uncle Ed 15:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say anything not said elsewhere in a better way, it just sort of rambles its was through variously flavoured slices of piffle. It is also factually incorrect; "Any other account of changes within populations (or the emergence of new populations) of life is Creationism, not Science" when alternative scientific theories have been proposed to account for evolution (they were wrong but they were nevertheless science).

It is on VFD to circumvent aggressive bullying tactics from certain users. — Dunc|☺ 15:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, this is another example of a personal research essay by User:Ed Poor about the subject of evolutionary creationism. When User:Duncharris redirected the article, Ed Poor decided that he wanted the article reinstated as is. "Guided evolution" is another example of a creationist neologism, it should just be deleted anyway. Are people really going to do a search for "guided evolution"? --ScienceApologist 16:17, 10 December 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.