Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious views of 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 Speedy Deleted by User:RoyBoy. Pilatus 23:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed Poor has made a POV fork of content already included in Wikipedia at other articles. In particular, the "religious views of evolution" are found at theistic evolution and creationism for example. More than this, much of this content is simply recreation from his other forks such as Definitions of evolution, Evolution poll, etc. --ScienceApologist 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Creation-evolution controversy - POV fork --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems appropriate, yes. Alternately, move Creation-evolution controversy to Religious views of evolution and expand treatment of non-Christian religions ... it may actually be a better title, but we don't need both and we don't need POV forking. --FOo 16:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto no reason not to, it seems. karmafist 17:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the current article at Creation-evolution controversy describes a particular aspect of religious views of evolution, while theistic evolution (the article is at evolutionary creationism) mostly explains and explores how religions support evolution. Although I'm concerned about such an article being a breeding ground for non-neutrality, I don't think that's reason enough to delete, and it has the potential of covering material not covered in either article. If it never does, we can redirect it later. Demi ^T/_C 17:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Evolutionary creationism, which deals with Jewish, Islamic and Hindu traditions as well as Christian. The Creation-evolution controversy page is too specifically Christian, and is about a debate which is only a big issue in the US (AFAIK). --Squiddy 17:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have to disagree with you there. Evolutionary creationism deals specifically with religious views that express compatibility with evolution. --FOo 17:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take your point. I still don't think it ought to redirect to a page which is so specific to one religion and one country - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. Maybe make it a disambig page? --Squiddy 18:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Creation-evolution controversy - POV fork -- WAS 4.250 17:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Speedy Delete per above Pilatus. Yet one more POV fork from Ed on AFD. How many is that now? FeloniousMonk 18:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as re-creation of previously deleted material. This is material from the Evolution poll page. Pilatus 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Cydeweys. Capitalistroadster 18:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the controversy. Gazpacho 18:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This POV fork barrage that is getting quite disruptive. Vsmith 20:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as this covers a specific area of the debate that deserves its subtopic.Trilemma 22:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too restrictive in its present formulation (if someone can come up with a sensible draft then it could be a reasonable topic). A neutral article would mention the non-overlapping magisteria between religion and science and the fact that most mainline churches and do not reject science and only fundamentalists and certain religious cults do. — Dunc|☺ 22:22, 9 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.