Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Design or 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. – Robert 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an abstract on a book presenting arguments in favour of Intelligent Design. I fail to see any evidence that the book eve made any impact; the Amazon sales rank is somewhere around 200000. Wikipedia isn't an abstracting service. Pilatus 13:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite or Delete. An article on the book would be fine, but delete if it can't expand beyond the abstract -AKMask 14:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At best this merits a bibliographic entry in the main article. Any attempt to rewrite this page would amount to a fork. Durova 14:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not worthy of an article.Gateman1997 00:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promo for an unnotable book. Business Wire is that-a-way, guys. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible copy-vio -- reads like promo, not review. Delete (possibly with x-ref to Intelligent design --Simon Cursitor 08:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Feed to talk.origins lions. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 15:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite, mentioning only new arguments that the book makes. I've never heard the (asinine) adenine/ATP argument. It may be ridiculous — but has anyone else made it? If it can be shown that this book (1) makes no new arguments or (2) is really that unpopular, I would be willing to delete on Durova's grounds. --Mgreenbe 16:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any new arguments this book makes belong on the main page as cited references. Durova 17:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promo of nn book. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Include info in an article on Stuart Pullen if he merits one, otherwise just put this on the appropriate untelligent debate pages etc. Dsol 17:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & comments above -- Jheald 18:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• delete promotional and aren't there enough of these articles floating around? - max rspct leave a message 21:35, 17 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.