Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical 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 was speedy keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Chemical evolution
Not a scientific term, made up by creationists. Evolution is a speicific type of process, and this does not fit. QWERERTRYEHEFYF
 * Speedy keep, trolling nomination. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it's not. QWERERTRYEHEFYF 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, yes it is a scientific term. But obviously not speedy. -Amarkov blahedits 23:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a real term. Nominator is quite clearly a single purpose account. Mashing the keyboard when you make a username makes it quite obvious.... --- RockMFR 23:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Erm, I just re-read the article, and it appears that only the first sentance refers to the creationist definition. The rest is seemingly valid. maybe I should just get rid of that sentance? QWERERTRYEHEFYF 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How does it refer to Creationism? In fact I would say just the opposite. TSO1D 00:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was made up by creationists, an attempt to group everything involving the development of the universe under the tag 'evolution'. Stellar nucleosynthesis is not evolution, it's stellar nucleosynthesis.
 * That doesn't mean that it can't get an article. Wrongness of a term doesn't mean it doesn't exist. -Amarkov blahedits 00:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Five seconds of Googling shows the term is in entirely scientific use by the geophysics department of MIT, the astronomy and astrophysics department at Clemson, the Dept. of Astrophysical & Planetary Sciences  at the University of Colorado, the school of physics and astronomy at the university of Cardiff, and the Wright Center for Science Education at Tufts. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It's an authentic and notable scientific term. TSO1D 00:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Editors on this page might care to look at "Chemical Evolution: Origins of the elements, molecules and living systems" by Stephen F. Mason, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991, ISBN 0-19-855272-6. Mason is a very reputable British chemist who when he wrote this was Emeritius Professor of Chemistry at King's College, University of London. It is a good source for improving the article and certainly demonstrates the notability of the topic and that it is a valid scientific term. --Bduke 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. per Bduke's citation, as well as the links provided by Finlay McWalter.  SkierRMH 02:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- a quick Google Scholar search shows that it's a notable scientific term. Mike Peel 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Finlay McWalter. This is a legitimate term.  I see no reason why chemists and physicists cannot use the term "evolution". --EMS | Talk 04:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - QWERERTRYEHEFYF only has four contributions at this time, and they are the creation of this page and the comments placed on it. See QWERERTRYEHEFYF's edit history. --EMS | Talk 04:10, 2 January 2007 (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.