Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution as theory and fact (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   speedy keep (WP:KEEP, WP:SNOW). Non-admin closure. — Rankiri (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Evolution as theory and fact
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Inherently WP:POV and WP:OR. It's not for wiki to debate fact V theory of evolution Gnevin (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple high-quality, reliable sources have discussed this issue, indicating it's a notable topic. POV problems, if they exist, can be corrected through editing. &mdash; Scientizzle 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no idea why this is up at AfD. The article is well sourced and finely explains scientific process in terms of evolution. I do not see any POV or OR here. Silver  seren C 02:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no POV or OR here. It's an NPOV examination of the objective difference between fact and theory, in the general context of what "theory" means in science, and in a very notable specific context of Evolution (comparing it with Gravity). It links to the relevant main topics and is well referenced. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  02:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: Previous AfD closed as a Speedy Keep - has anything significant changed since last time? -- Boing!   said Zebedee


 * Comment This article is a thinly disguised debate over evolution . Where is Plate tectonics as theory and fact]? Gnevin (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no one has made the article yet? If it can be well sourced, then there's no reason not to make an article about it. Silver  seren C 02:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The nominator's reasons for nominating this article for deletion, WP:POV and WP:OR, are not valid reasons for deletion, thus the nominator is not even calling for deletion. For that reason, I call for a speedy keep. Silver  seren C 02:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the reasons given above. No valid reason has been given. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. well sourced and balanced. 76.191.143.183 (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are seven references on the first sentence which show that the "theory and fact" discussion is well documented, notable, and ongoing. It is not an NPOV problem for an article to discuss scientifically established facts – the only question is whether the topic is notable and the references show that it is. Johnuniq (talk)
 * Keep The article is not trying to make a case for evolution; rather it is explaining the terminological confusion surrounding phrases "evolution is a fact", "evolution is a theory". It is not OR — references in the article point to the semantic debate itself rather than simply evidence for and against evolution. — Axel147 (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A rather lovely example of why one should actually read. the. article. but perhaps we should do something about the problematically simplistic title? Plutonium27 (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no question that this isn't a notable issue that should have an entry, if the nominator is unhappy about some of the content this is not the way to get that changed. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a legit topic, sources easily found. WP shouldn't host a debate, or choose a side in it.  It should objectively describe the existing debate.  Professor marginalia (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly a notable topic. On first sight I can see no content problems, either. Fringe (creationist) arguments get an unusual amount of attention in the article, but that's appropriate because the article is fringe-related. Hans Adler 06:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid topic as it addresses some very common misconceptions regarding the distinction between fact and theory as those concepts pertain to a theory that is heavily debated in the public sphere.DoktorDec (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Can't see any actual objection here - the ideas associated with evolution can be seen as both a theory and a fact. Cortical (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2010 (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.