Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can evolution be guided by God?


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Can evolution be guided by God?
This is another POV-fork by user Ed Poor presenting his particular take on the possible ways to answer the question "Can evolution be guided by God?" He ignores the fact that there are articles on theistic evolution and progressive creationism which already address this question in an NPOV manner. He reinstated this article claiming it wasn't properly AfDed when it was speedily deleted. --ScienceApologist 14:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. The title itself scrapes WP:NOR. PJM 14:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is getting tiresome. Vsmith 15:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Vsmith. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 15:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (see deletion log for more information about this page's history). &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 15:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep We don't go around deleting articles just because they're stubs, we improve them, we don't just delete them--Ytrewqt 15:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC) This vote is 's fourth edit; his/her third edit was illegally removing the AfD notice from the article.
 * We do, however, go around deleting articles that are in violation of POV fork and WP:NOR, to say nothing of articles that repost previously deleted material. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 15:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per PJM. This is an essay and not an encyclopaedia article. I also note the interesting reference to the ways the question may be "answered by Americans". The non-American 95% obviously do not matter. David | Talk 15:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is this an article about the question "Can evolution be guided by God?"?  Does that second question mark make sense?  Certainly more sense than this article.  And can the person or people who keep creating these POV forks just create List of Athiests Who Love Evolution and Ignore or Seek to Discredit ID and Creationism, Even Though They Are Different, I Swear so at least I can laugh when I type "Delete"? -Parallel or Together ? 16:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What about List of Thiests Who Love Evolution and Ignore or Seek to Discredit ID and Creationism, Even Though They Are Different, I Swear - Guettarda 16:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See, Guettarda knows how to make me laugh. Thank you.  Sadly, though, I must pre-emptively vote to delete your proposed page, as well as my own, should they ever be created. -Parallel or Together ? 11:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Guettarda 16:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, another blatant POV fork by an editor infamous for them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Specifying Delete without merging.  Also, I support the calls to sanction this editor.  For this editor to pretend, after his years of experience, that he thought Can evolution be guided by God? was even an acceptable Wikipedia title, let alone a subject covered nowhere else on Wikipedia, is preposterous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Can a page title be any more PoV? Already covered better elsewhere, and this page barely has any meaningful content. &mdash; RJH 18:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV --Mecanismo 18:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. per above.  Not sure what this is, but it sure doesn't look like it's trying to be an eneyclopedia article. Friday (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a good article, not a relevant subject, and the material is all somehwhere else. The Land 19:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; seems more like WP:POINT than even an honest attempt at original research. Fredrik | tc 21:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to the yet-to-be-created sister project WikiBlog. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-10 21:42
 * 'Delete. Blank Verse'' 23:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Personal essay, covered elsewhere.  Jtmichcock 03:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and sanction creator. Ambi 06:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and sanction creator, yes. The intersection of the set of admins and the set of trolls should be null. --FOo 11:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and sanction creator. He should know better than to dispupt to make a point. -- Ec5618 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research; speculative essay. Agree with sanctioning creator. I don't understand how one could think that either the title or the contents were encyclopedic. If this had been created by a newer user, it would likely have been speedily deleted. Please stop doing this. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 03:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, Ed has crossed the line into bad faith territory. Gazpacho 03:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete looney original research has no place here. --Kiand 18:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another Ed Poor POV fork, also per Fredrik. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Kyknos 20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * delete not an article Sethie 17:39, 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.