Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of creation


 * 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. -- Steel 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of creation


This page is simply rehashed creationist propaganda, hopelessly POV, unsourced, contains fallacies, runs afoul of the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. JoshuaZ 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, but perhaps some of it can be scrapped, fixed, and merged into Creation.  Dooms Day34  9  22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a front for propaganda, and as a Christian, I find this to be downright embarrassing - it makes baby jeebus cry. =( --Dennisthe2 23:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * POV Delete as unnecessary fork and skewed. Definitely breaks two prongs of our NPOV policy. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per all above. This article was pathetic when I first saw it. I ended up making major changes to restore NPOV, but I think it's better if we just delete the damn thing.UberCryxic 23:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  keep Change name & major rewrite if it can't be Merged into creationism Although creatism is a load of tosh, the creatist argument is one which must be covered in any decent encyclopedia. The article not only gives a lot of useful information for someone researching the subject but it also has a really nice picture! My initial thought was to merge it into creationism but that article is already quite a hash of different subjects and might benefit from separating out which is why it might be appropriate to keep. Obviously it would have to be rewritten to make it balanced giving both pro- anti point of view. --Mike 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article and even the title is POV. The article only deals with Western, Christian views of creation and fails WP:CSB. (After all, everyone knows it's turtles all the way down.) -- Charlene 00:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument for christian creation is such a well known subject that it really needs to be covered. I tried to work out what the appropriate vote was but I'm stuck. I'm convinced the name needs deleting, but can someone comment on another name. What if the article were called "Creationism (Christian)" and within that article were set out the argument for creation as found in this article followed by the article against creationism? If I were writing an essay I would find it useful to have the information in this article available in order to know what I was arguing against. I looked at Creationism and it really doesn't seem to cover what this article does, nor given its current size does it seem appropriate to add to it. If a factual article could be produced describing the argument used for creation and the kind of events that are cited as fact, it would be useful to have and encyclopedic, in the same way Wikipedia covers fascism, without supporting the philosophy.--Mike 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject is notable, and of use to the general public who will want to know more about a current public debate. To avoid bias, would should have a Arguements for Creation article or somesuch for balance which basically this article seems to be. I'm not saying it should be given the same weight as other theories supported by the scientific community though. The whole creationsist/evolution debate is Christian in the US context, and that should be clarified or expanded to cover other creation theories. Robovski 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy or Creation-evolution controversy. This topic is already covered heavily in wikipedia meshach 03:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever useful info can be salvaged (which may not be much) into another page per other comments here (I prefer to creationism). It would need to be rewritten; as now it is way too POV (hotly contested content and clearly fallacious content stated as fact). Else delete. Baccyak4H 17:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Mesach, nothing here to merge which isn't already covered, better, elsewhere. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Creationism already has its own page. This stuff is just WP:BOLLOCKS.Leibniz 13:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: This is a biased page with information that should be covered under Creationism. Riverbend 16:44, 13 November 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.