Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Design and Creationism


 * 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 intelligent closing and deletism. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design and Creationism
This is yet another (what is this number 7 or 8?) WP:FORK by to push his bizarre religious view of science. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 15:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please avoid personal remarks. If you are saying that I have a "bizarre religious view of science", you are making a personal attack. Uncle Ed 15:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ed contacted me on IRC about this, and I just wanted to put what I said to him on the wiki: 15:53/27 < Phroziac> Ed_Poor_in_exile: I don't think that's a personal attack. I think it's quite incivil and rude though. --Phroziac . o ºO (mmmmm chocolate!) 15:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No. That's right. Had I wanted to be rude I could have been more personal about his motives. Continuing to ignore consensus on this issue however is rude. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 16:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Another personal attack. For the second time today, I ask you to stop attacking me. Please do not call me rude. Uncle Ed 16:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ed, please. he's not making personal attacks. --Phroziac . o ºO (mmmmm chocolate!) 17:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Appears to be original research, delete. Morwen - Talk 15:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork, OR. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete original research --Ryan Delaney talk 16:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete More original research, another POV fork, and yet one more waste of time. FeloniousMonk 16:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with FM. Bill Jefferys 17:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. OR, yay. Another POV fork, yay. More devaluation of the excellent rule on personal attacks by overuse, yay. --Last Malthusian 17:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as fork. No references cited either. Capitalistroadster 18:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete fork. ...dave souza 18:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. ESkog | Talk 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research/PoV essay. &mdash; RJH 20:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary and factually spurious (as ID does not uniformly regard fossils as authentic, and certainly does not agree with scientific intepretation of them). - RoyBoy 800 21:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research.Gateman1997 22:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as uncited, POV fork, factually incorrect original research. -Parallel or Together ? 23:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. original reserach. I strongly urge Ed Poor places greater efforts at citing his sources so that we can verify his claims. Thanks. El_C 01:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another personal essay. - Nunh-huh 03:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, No original research and WP:POINT. Stifle 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, why can't we all just be friends? Creationists be nice to evolutionists, and evolutionists be nice to creationists. Croat Canuck 01:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as an essay. Jtmichcock 02:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Kill, Destroy, wipe, Blow up with 1000kg of TNT... - SoM 13:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Why are we tolerating this behavior from User:Ed Poor? --ScienceApologist 19:02, 9 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.