Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy (2nd nomination)


 * 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 was   no consensus. The discussion tended towards deletion, but I don't feel comfortable calling this a rough consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  01:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is trying to be a category. It simply lists a good portion of the wikilinks in the creation–evolution controversy page. Although I don't think a category should exist for this either (we have creationism and evolution cats already), we should at least use the proper mechanism if others insist. Ben (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: This article is a list, but it's not an encyclopaedic list. Please see WP:CAT where it notes that Categorization is a feature of Wikipedia's software, enabling pages to be placed in categories which can then be used by readers to find sets of articles on related topics. We shouldn't be using article space to categorise like this. As an example, we have Category:Evolution not List of articles related to evolution. Ben (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lists are legitimate navigational aids (See WP:CLN), and there is no conflict with having a navigational template, list, and category on the same topic. This article organizes related articles in a logical, subdivided, and hierarchical manner that helps the reader explore the topic of Creation–evolution controversy.  I do think prepending "List of" to the beginning of the title would be a good idea. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  08:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lists are legitimate navigational aids, but we shouldn't be using article space to categorise. Where is the List of articles related to evolution for instance? It's here. Please see Lists_(stand-alone_lists) and WP:CAT, and note that not every list needs to exist simply because it is a list - especially when categories are designed for this type of 'list'. Ben (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You refer to Lists (stand-alone lists), which talks about lists which are too broad ('list of brand names'), too narrow ('list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana') or on unencyclopedic topics ('list of shades of colors of apple sauce'). But you don't seem to be arguing that this list is any of those, so I don't see that that section is directly relevant. But point 3 in this section of the same guideline does, to me, seem directly applicable - see my !vote below. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete redundant to Creation–evolution controversy and a suitable category structure. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep . This is a 'subheading-structured list' as described by Stand-alone lists. As another example, we have a list of calculus topics: while that duplicates Category:calculus it presents the information in a different way, divided into logical headings on a single page. This list does the same, and I think makes individual articles much easier to find than ploughing through a category or creation–evolution controversy would. So far as I can see Ben's argument about redundancy doesn't apply to articles related to the creation-evolution controversy any more than list of calculus topics or list of finance topics (which is given as an example by Stand-alone lists, and so presumably falls into the sphere of what that guideline is intended to allow). As for "we have creationism and evolution cats already", I think this is a sufficiently notable and large (in the sense of number of articles) topic that navigational aids like lists and categories are needed. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection, though, to renaming to "List of topics in the creation-evolution controversy" or something similar. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is exactly what categories were created for. And don't say WP:CLN. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CLN. ;) - Mgm|(talk) 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree completely with Stifle's comments...a category, not a page, is appropriate for the purpose of collecting articles with a common theme. And there's already a category: .  If that isn't good enough to capture articles related to the debate, then perhaps we should consider creating a sub-category of Category:Creationism to address this.  Cazort (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The navboxes in the related articles are navigational aids. This is just duplication of stuff that's already covered in both articles and navigational aids. - Mgm|(talk) 17:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is one big original research in collecting articles which in author's opinion are related to "C-E C", peppered with editorialisms, some of which are opinionated. Judging from the inclusion of "Varve" in this list, one may well include whole geology and biology categories here. The topic is too narrow to have a topic list. A navbox with articles immediately treating the subject would suffice. - Altenmann >t 18:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks encyclopedic and valuable. Should maybe be a list article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Altenmann. LotLE × talk  20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete article completely redundant given the use of categories, article not encyclopedic or useful anyway. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, perhaps I've been talked round. As Mgm points out we have navboxes (Template:Evolution3, Template:Intelligent Design and Template:Creationism2) to serve this purpose, and the more parallel categorisations we have the harder maintenance becomes. I'm not sure whether I agree that "the topic is too narrow to have a topic list" or not, but given the navboxes I won't object to a deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Between Mgm and Mangojuice's excellent points below I am convinced. Delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Turn it into a portal. --RandomNumberSee (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It's perfectly acceptable to have both a category and a list and this list organizes the information in a far better way than any category could. Edward321 (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Lists have an advantage over categories, in that they can also include some information on the subject beyond merely the name of the article. John Carter (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Any information added would simply be a duplicate of information already on the single article creation-evolution controversy. This article is nothing more than a list of terms related to that single article. Ben (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a far more useful navigational aid than the category or the Creationism portal.--Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Not sure where to go on this. At minimum, the title needs to be something else since it triggers WP:ASR issues. It also needs much clearly inclusion criteria if it is going to be kept. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Delete" the article. The purpose of the actual text and of the title (both the original one, and the one after the move) is to serve as a list of articles that make up a recommended reading list.  You can tell from the "related to" language.  We have List of calculus topics, we don't have List of topics related to calculus, which would be overly broad and opinionated.  This is not a list of specific topics within a larger topic, or it would consist of far fewer articles: Creation myth, for instance, should be of interest to readers interested in the controversy, but is also clearly not an article about the creation-evolution controversy.  Fundamentally, this is a Portal -- a starting point for readers with a specific interest, offering recommendations.  In principle, we could have a List of creation-evolution controversy topics article, but it would be vastly different in purpose from this one.  Per WP:SAL, a list should always have a clear and unambiguous description of what fits within the list and what does not.  This one starts, "The following is a clearinghouse of articles which refer to terms often used in the context of the creation-evolution controversy," and includes such various topics as Plate techtonics, Bioinformatics, Positivism, Theology, Culture wars, arguments for the existence of God, and articles relating to Evolution or Creationism with no substantive relationship to the controversy such as Heredity, Vestigal organs, Creation myth, Global flood.  Mango juice talk 16:39, 12 May 2009 (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.