Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent designer
- 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense soapboxing. Merge useful content with God Endomion 18:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Neologism, delete or redirect to God Endomion 18:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (Modified nom Endomion 23:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- If content is to be merged anywhere, the article cannot be deleted as per the GFDL. Guettarda 19:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the good stuff (if any) to God or redirect to God, but deep-six this article. Endomion 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the place for merges. This is deletion. Are you nominating it for deletion, or do you want it merged? You can bring an article for merging here. Guettarda 21:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Modified nomination Endomion 23:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the place for merges. This is deletion. Are you nominating it for deletion, or do you want it merged? You can bring an article for merging here. Guettarda 21:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the good stuff (if any) to God or redirect to God, but deep-six this article. Endomion 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If content is to be merged anywhere, the article cannot be deleted as per the GFDL. Guettarda 19:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You "modified" the nomination? Don't you find that to be rather disingenuous? Are we going to play a game of modified nominations until you run out of ideas? Besides, your modification is absurd, and linguistically incorrect. Enough is enough. Jim62sch 00:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I question whether this nom was made in good faith (so to speak) -- MisterHand 18:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although a more extensive discussion occurs on the Intelligent design page, this is a good start on a useful article. --Hansnesse 18:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to God.Gateman1997 19:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - valid daughter article spun off from intelligent design. Guettarda 19:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perspective on who the supposed designer is and His Attributes. — Dunc|☺ 19:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Reasons given at Talk:Intelligent designer#AFD have been shown to be baseless. FeloniousMonk 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, FM, your reasons prove this article is about God. Endomion 20:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Or the intelligent designer, depending on who you're talking to... That's kinda the point.FeloniousMonk 20:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Creating a whole article to make this point violates the principle that Wikipedia articles are not to be propaganda or advocacy of any kind (see Wikipedia is not a soapbox). Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. If ID advocates say the intelligent designer is God, then this article should redirect to God. If they don't identify the intelligent designer, then please don't create original research about such an entity. Endomion 20:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment They don't say the designer is God, so why are you requesting this be redirected to God? This is against your own argument. With all due respect, you're not making any sense. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By apppending the suffix -er, the creator of this stub made an article about a sentient entity, not a movement. FeloniusMonk cites many identifications of God as the source of design by ID proponents on the Talk page of this article. Endomion 03:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now it's obvious you're just making your objections up. Try google next time before trotting them out. Google gives 284,000 hits for "intelligent designer" [1]. Dembski's book "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design" has 56 instances of "intelligent designer" alone [2] FeloniousMonk 07:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As you well know, FM, putting a binary word like "intelligent designer" into a search engine harvests hits from "intelligent gerbils" and "designer drugs" Endomion 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're wrong. By using the " " operators, you limit the search to the specific term at Google. A broad search (without the " " operators) yields 5,340,000 hits as you say. But the 284,000 hits for the narrow search for "intelligent designer" shows it's a well-established concept worthy of its own article. I mean really, if you're going to AFD articles, you should at least know how to Google properly and check the topic on Google properly first. This is exactly the same problem we had with you when you tried to AFD Neo-Creationism. FeloniousMonk 16:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As you well know, FM, putting a binary word like "intelligent designer" into a search engine harvests hits from "intelligent gerbils" and "designer drugs" Endomion 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now it's obvious you're just making your objections up. Try google next time before trotting them out. Google gives 284,000 hits for "intelligent designer" [1]. Dembski's book "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design" has 56 instances of "intelligent designer" alone [2] FeloniousMonk 07:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By apppending the suffix -er, the creator of this stub made an article about a sentient entity, not a movement. FeloniusMonk cites many identifications of God as the source of design by ID proponents on the Talk page of this article. Endomion 03:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment They don't say the designer is God, so why are you requesting this be redirected to God? This is against your own argument. With all due respect, you're not making any sense. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Creating a whole article to make this point violates the principle that Wikipedia articles are not to be propaganda or advocacy of any kind (see Wikipedia is not a soapbox). Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. If ID advocates say the intelligent designer is God, then this article should redirect to God. If they don't identify the intelligent designer, then please don't create original research about such an entity. Endomion 20:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Or the intelligent designer, depending on who you're talking to... That's kinda the point.FeloniousMonk 20:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Guettarda. The only other place for this to go is not God, its Intelligent design, the parent article, and its too long already. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The intelligent designer is not necessarily "God" by the one-side-of-the-mouth arguments by the proponents of Intelligent Design. --ScienceApologist 20:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Whether or not most people equate the two concepts (intelligent designer and God) is irrelevant. Since ID in its current literature does not identify the intelligent designer one cannot arbitrarily "put the good parts" in the God article. Or is this some weird kind of test (one never knows). Jim62sch 21:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC) [see revision below][reply]
- That's exactly why I nominated this article on nonsense grounds, this article identifies something that even intelligent design advocates do not identify. It is a backdoor attempt to double the exposure on Wikipedia of the anti-ID POV, which is why I nominated it on the grounds it is a soapbox. Endomion 22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think not. In fact, now that the spurious nature of the AFD has been further amplified, I am changing my vote to
- Speedy Keep Jim62sch 23:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a daughter article for ID. There's a section there that's too long, and this is where I'm putting the overflow. Dave (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with God. dont get this. if the intelligent designer is not god who is he? the devil? Zzzzz 22:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Change vote to Keep i see there is some discussion about that in the article itself. Zzzzz 22:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect — Perhaps I'm just oversimplifying, but why not redirect to Intelligent design? — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 23:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because otherwise that article will be too long Dave (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect not same as merge Zzzzz 23:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed (edit conflict :P). Information really doesn't need to be merged; most is duplicate in any case. Redirect only is what I suggest. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 23:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I could have just done a redirect to this stub from the gitgo, but because of WikiLove I wanted to see what your thoughts on it were first. Endomion 03:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed (edit conflict :P). Information really doesn't need to be merged; most is duplicate in any case. Redirect only is what I suggest. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 23:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect not same as merge Zzzzz 23:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because otherwise that article will be too long Dave (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --Davril2020 23:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the main ID article is already very long, and I see no problems with the blurb on the main article linking to this expanded one. Barneyboo (Talk) 23:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Theories about who the designer(s) may or may not be are encyclopedic. Is it God or some aliens from another planet? Jtmichcock 05:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Same as above. --Cybercobra 01:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and consider speedy if the consensus continues to be this overwhelming. FCYTravis 08:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Speedy Keep
editI move to speedy keep this article and close this AFD. It's not a valid AfD as the nominator is asking for a merge. FeloniousMonk 23:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nay - Nominator has modified her nomination to make sure this gets enough time for a valid consensus. Endomion 23:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing your nomination after people have already voted and commented is highly irregular and more than a little disengenous. New arrivals will be under the impression that previous comments are to your current updated reasoning, and will appear out of step. You need to go back, replace your original comments for justifying the AFD, then add your updated comments beneath it or strike-through the old reason. FeloniousMonk 23:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It was necessary to reword my nomination because I had politely suggested that any actual descriptive information about this intelligently designer entity could be merged with the God article as a less destructive alternative, but this was used by others operating from bad faith as a pretext to attempt to halt the debate. My current nomination eliminates this technicality. Endomion 01:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing your nomination after people have already voted and commented is highly irregular and more than a little disengenous. New arrivals will be under the impression that previous comments are to your current updated reasoning, and will appear out of step. You need to go back, replace your original comments for justifying the AFD, then add your updated comments beneath it or strike-through the old reason. FeloniousMonk 23:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea Nomination is based on inaccurate assertions, and AFD mechanism has been misapplied. Jim62sch 16:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, now that the nom has been changed it doesn't even make sense. Its a daughter article of ID, ID originators and proponenets have stated numerous times that the designer is not necessarily God, the changed nom is a political maneuver on the part of the nominator. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nay, let the AFD run its course.Gateman1997 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. ID'ers claim that there is an intelligent designer that is distinguishable from the Christian God; indeed that claim is central to their attempts to get ID into public schools (it's widely acknowledged to be a smokescreen, but they still make that claim). Iceberg3k 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Intelligent Design Article is too long, and therefore needs to be split up, and this is obviously a perfect splitoff article. Whether or not there is an "intelligent designer" or not, is irrelavent. It would appear that who ever submitted this artical for deletion is extremely controlling, not wanting to allow others the freedom of thought. I posted a small highly relevant addition to the page and it was deleted almost immediately, I would suspect by the person who wants this page deleted. A person into thought control of that sort, should be considered for banning, if there is a process to ban people. I'm sure this is not an isolated incident for this person.
- 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.