Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative to Creation and 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 and the closing administrator that there was a consensus to smite this article from the wiki :) Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Alternative to Creation and Evolution
NPOV & Non-encyclopaedic -Drdisque 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Pound with asteroids --YixilTesiphon Say hello 01:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Redirect to theistic evolution. Blackcats 02:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Pound with fire from heaven, in other words the creation version of Delete. Croat Canuck 02:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Smite, BadgerBadger 02:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Burn it with fire POV Junk --Jaranda wat's sup 03:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The main problem with the article is not neutrality. It is the simple fact that the cited source is a book whose publisher is listed as the author himself.  Checking, I find that the book was in fact published via a vanity press.  Whilst it is present in the author's book, on the author's web site, in the author's web log, and on the web site of the vanity press company, there's no evidence that I can find, and (as usual) no evidence provided in the article, that this concept has gained any traction in the world at large outside of its author.  Thus, the article is original research, plain and simple. Delete. Uncle G 03:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nuke Jamie 03:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 04:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Simple delete is fine. Original research laundered through a vanity-press book. --Calton | Talk 06:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Rain of toads Ronabop 07:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Silly over-the-top message urging a Delete. Atlanta Nights proved that it takes no effort whatsoever to get a book published in a vanity press. --Zetawoof 09:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, sort of. A true vanity press is one where authors pay to have their books printed, and will therefore indeed accept any manuscript. By contrast Atlanta Nights was a scam played on PublishAmerica, which claims NOT to be a vanity press. The authors of Atlanta Nights were challenging that claim. AndyJones 17:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC). No vote, by the way (looks unnecessary).
 * Well, I meant in that they were subsequently able to publish it through a true vanity press (Lulu). --Zetawoof 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Angel Of Deletion ain't passing over this one. More OR. --Last Malthusian 11:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with Uncle G. NPOV is not really the issue here. I say delete but there is somehow a point... Too original for now. Gtabary 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete sayeth CarbonCopy 16:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (appears to be promotion of vanity-press-published original research)


 * A pox on it Jasmol 19:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And lo, it came to pass unto Wikipedia that thyne words within tyhne own created article were not good; and lo, said unto Wikipedia editors that thyne article must hence be Deleted from whence it came; and Wikipedia saw this article deleted; and it was good. doktorb 21:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Return to sender.Gateman1997 00:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Pull out its nose hairs one at a time Redirect to either creation science or evolution but spare us this bastard child. D e nni &#9775;  02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Vaporize it with all of the admin's might - unencyclopedic on so many levels, the least of it being OR. B.Wind 02:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interpreted as delete by closing administrator Jtkiefer T  08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fix and Move- This could be moved to Debate over Creation or some such article to allow the NPOV comments to remain useful and encyclopedic. I would suggest as well that all the book hype be deleted considering the plethora of books on Science and Creation or Science and the Bible, etc. that are out there.--eleuthero 04:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete with extreme prejudice. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

--Image77 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)from the author of this article: I will amp up my entry with the logical argument I offer in my book and link to the sources, such as St. Augustine and Stephen Hawking, from which I derive my alternative to Creationism and the Big Bang. I will remove the link to my blog. Today, many authors have to self-publish in order to get their ideas out there. In my case, I also want to keep the rights to my work and not sell them. It isn't always valid to state that a self-published book has no merit on a priori basis, though of course I can understand the perception. If anyone here wishes, I will e-mail you a free PDF of my book for further review. I do work in science. I am not a Ph.D., but I do work in plasma physics. Let me have a few more days before destroying my article with asteroids, foreign objects, etc. My e-mail is secretsoflight@gmail.com
 * Merge with Intelligent Design, which is what this article seems to be about. Cynical 20:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your theory or your book. --Last Malthusian 16:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

--Image77-- (from the author) Please delete my article.
 * CommentIf you want to retain the rights to this work, it definitely doesn't belong on Wikipedia, since anything written here is licensed for free distribution and editing by outside parties. I mention this so that you don't end up with an unpleasant surprise in the future. -Colin Kimbrell 17:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.