Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent Designers


 * 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 delete. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 00:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Designers
Consists of original research by. It makes nonsensical pseudostatistical claims. The only source is one weblog entry of dubious seriousness. This does not constitute the viewpoint of the fundamentalist Christian intelligent design movement who consider the designer to be God. It is remarkably similar to a previously deleted page of patent nonsense "Multiple Designers Theory" &mdash; see Articles for deletion/Multiple Designers Theory. The suggested course of action is delete/redirect to the article on intelligent designer. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 15:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete No need for a redirect since it is an unlikely search term, although note that "Multiple Designers Theory" could possibly be a reasonable topic since it has come up in verifiable sources. Most prominently it was discussed in Michael Behe's testimony in theKitzmiller trial. Er, that was me, apparently not signed in. JoshuaZ 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Bucketsofg 15:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Gwernol 17:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Guettarda 18:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. What utter garbage (or bullocks).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - creationismcruft. And redirecting to Intelligent design sounds like a fine course of action. Cyde Weys 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Intelligent design and blank this nonsense.  (aeropagitica)   19:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "nonsensical pseudostatistical claims": discrete uniform distribution is pseudostatistics on Wikipedia??
 * "does not constitute the viewpoint of...": Of course, it doesn't, why should it.
 * "garbage/bullocks/nonsense": Truely profound arguments... --Twiw 20:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain I'm not seeing patent nonsense. I also really don't care if it isn't the xtian view of intelligent design either, because they do not have a monopoly on the idea.  That leaves the OR claim and well, tag it unsourced again and explain WP:RS and see if something pops up.  Kotepho 21:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Hoax. The old 'abuse probability calculus to turn a conjecture into a certainty' trick gives it away. Peter Grey 03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this nonsense, and redirect to Intelligent designer. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Intelligent designer. FeloniousMonk 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. FloNight   talk  19:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Patent nonsense. Some nut posts trash on Panda's Thumb (an evolution blog) and  it gets an article in Wikipedia?  C'mon.  Wake up and delete it already. Ande B 04:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wake up? Yes please. Simple maths will do the trick. I'm stunned to see that people are so blinded by Intelligent Designs wild and completely unproven guess of a single designing entity that they are unwilling to accept that picking a specific number (like the 1) in a completely unknown scenario is the most unlikely choice. Always. Simple maths will lead to the conclusion that IF you accept that designing entitites exist at all, that then there must have been more than one.
 * All these "nonsense!" (without ANY further explanations, ever) comments here are providing the impression that Intelligent Design gets accepted as the sole, valid "designing theory" on Wikipedia. Again, "ONE designing entitity" is nothing but a wild guess, "more than one designing entity" is a thesis that any calculus of probabilty confirms. --Twiw 20:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Blinded by Intelligent Design? Who are you talking to?  Intelligent Design is a total crock.  Multiple Designers is Multiple Crock. No matter how precisely you add up nonsense, it is still nonsense. The article, however, shows no editorial or factual merit and is not in any way notable.   Delete this one fast.  Ande B 23:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * comment multiple designers is maybe as plausable a hypothesis as a single designer. My main criticism with the article is the maths which tries to prove there must be one or more. Flawed on two counts, one its circular, the distribution of number of creators has been chosen to show theres more than one, choose a different distribution and you would get different probabilities, (this of course assumes that its even possible to have a disrtibution of designers. Which only possible if there is multiple universes). Its also flawed by an argument involving limits to infinity. The maths also seems to be WP:OR as I can't find this mentioned elsewhere.
 * Drop the maths and it becomes a better article apparently Jonathan Wells, William A. Dembski and Michael Behe have all commented on the theory, whether anything has been published out side of blogs is not clear, so currently fails to establish notability. --Salix alba (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (I prodded the article about a month ago)


 * 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.