Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designism


 * 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Designism

 * See also Articles for deletion/Ordinary Design Theory.

Original research. The sources given do not talk about this overall theory, but about small portions of the text of the article. Much like an article claiming "Zippy the Kangaroo is God" and using articles on kangaroos, God, and the word "zippy" as references Xyzzyplugh 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article cites several sources. The second cited source says: Actually the proper designation &mdash; for there is nothing new in the basic argument of this book &mdash; is "intelligent Design Theory".  The first cited source says outright that it is talking about Intelligent Design in in its very first sentence.  Uncle G 15:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Again, another instance of using original research and creating articles with terms so uncommon that they don't even qualify as neologisms yet. Term is not a useful redirect and the content cannot be merged. FeloniousMonk 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * weak delete While I haven't had enough depth in philosophy to know if this has any serious academic supporters, I recognize the structure as being an academic approach to the idea) and I support delete because any measure of notability I can personally check shows it as unnotable, but I'd still like to point out that sometimes wikipedia editors are too quick to say "no google=no go" In my own field(computer science) I've seen things that were the among subjects of courses that I've had to take that would fail the internet tests of notability... although I could be overdoing the WP:AGF for this article. i kan reed 15:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: an ugly neologism, and the article seems to be about notions that are covered better under intelligent design and various other creationism titles. Smerdis of Tlön 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Intelligent Design by another name so just redirect. WAS 4.250 16:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Byrgenwulf 07:37, 26 July 2006 (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.