Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy


 * 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. WP:SNOW. Editors should of course feel free to create a different list of [notable] creationists, complementary to Category:Creationists and its subcats. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * The article violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE by offering a false balance between evolution and creationism. We are treated to a long list of creationists and creationist organizations, with a relatively shorter list on the pro-evolution side.


 * Several items in the list don't have a corresponding article.


 * The What links here page reveals a self-walled-garden, with all but two links being redirects back to the list itself. Such redirects give a veneer of notability where there is none.


 * At least one item (there may be others), Answers In Creation, is a redirect to another list embedded in another article.


 * Some items appear to promote fringe content, for instance a creationist who made a "prediction about comet composition, discovered by the Deep Impact Mission on 4 July 2005."


 * The article has carried the NPOV tag since September, with no resolution in sight. Fixing particular issues such as those above would not solve the inherent false balance the article itself suggests. There is little expectation that conforming to NPOV is possible in this circumstance.


 * We already have categories that address the bookkeeping aspect of this article, for instance Category:Creationists, Category:Creationist organisations, Category:Critics of creationism, and Category:Science advocacy organizations.

Manul ~ talk 01:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  02:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * delete I can see having a list of creationists; maybe we already do. I'm not seeing having a list of anti-creationists. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By your own words the nominator for deletion has POV problems. "I can see having a list of creationists ... not seeing a list of anti-creationists."--Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your not willing to see the list of "anti-creationists" or you didn't read the article?--Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Manul AfD this post without reading the article, and has nominated it for "not seeing a list of anti-creationists" Clearly he has POV issues. He is either to lazy or unwilling to edit the article and would rather waste hundreds of hours of study. SMH WP:AFD WP:EQ WP:NPOV And I'm the new guy, this guys has been doing this for 9 years. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, uh I'm sorry ill give up now --Kaptinavenger (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I entirely agree with the nomination statement. This type of list has an inherent undue-weight problem: almost every vocal creationist is a "participant in the controversy", and almost every non-creationist avoids the topic like the plague the ten plagues, leaving the putative "opponents" section underpopulated relative to the actual predominance of that view. It's pretty obvious POV to title the sections "proponents" and "opponents" of creationism in any case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per the concise wisdom of an IP user on the talk page: "There is no 'Creation-Evolution Controversy'." — Noah  04:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the reasons given above, and more. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete List of new religious movement and cult researchers has much the same issues, as probably do lists of UFO and Bigfoot controversy participants. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Expand, useful for vetting and cross referencing. 50+ cross references in support of Evolution, 200+ Edits, ~50 Editors, 9 Years of work.--Kaptinavenger (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * appears to be on a canvassing spree, notifying editors who have touched the article back to 2008 and perhaps further. I want to assume good faith, but some editors suspiciously didn't get notified, such as Dougweller, who, based upon talk page comments, would seem likely to vote for deletion. Regardless, any set of editors that are invested in the article is not a representative sample of editors anyway. Kaptinavenger, please stop and read WP:CANVASS. Manul ~ talk 08:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have posted on Manul talk page, the originator of the Delete, and AndyTheGrump and Stephan Schulz who if you would read the articles talk page you would see does not share my personal opinion on the matter but is willing to edit rather than trash. I'm not sure about previous deletion attempts, bear with me I am new, and I have skipped a few editors as It looks like they are using bots to edit, and flipping back and forth canvassing, for a topic I enjoy, is not easy. Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis. read WP:CANVASS WP:BITE and WP:AFD "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted".--Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , you skipped Dougweller because you thought he was editing through a bot? Why did you think that? Independent of whatever that is about, there is still the second point I made in my previous comment: do you understand why I said "any set of editors that are invested in the article is not a representative sample of editors"? Even if you notified every single person appearing in the article history, without leaving any one out, that would still be a problem. You are continuing to canvass; please stop. Manul ~ talk 09:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Manul read WP:GF WP:AFD WP:BITE WP:NPOV Also try reading what you say before you post. Your poker face is weak. You are impatient, rude and your POV is showing. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Resorting to personal attacks when asked to explain what appears on the face of it to be a violation of WP:CANVAS isn't generally the most productive approach. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Manul repeating the same WP:CAN complaint without reading my responses is Like when he AfD'd this article without reading it. His complaints to my legitimate canvassing (Andy you got letter and voted to delete) is a sign to his not wanting me to canvas for this article. He wants the thing dead because it contradicts his PPOV that people with more education than him might believe in Creation. If he does not like the lop sidedness of the article he should have tried editing. Not trashing. WP:AFD "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" --Kaptinavenger (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On what basis are you asserting that User:Manul hasn't read the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Manul's voting comment he is "not seeing a list of anti-creationists", by anti-creationists I take to mean section 2 of this list. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What? Manul didn't write that - it was User:Mangoe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, uh I'm sorry ill give up now --Kaptinavenger (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have amended my response for clarity. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Does anyone call themselves "anti-creationists"? Your POV is still hanging out. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference between say Richard Dawkins, a professional Opponent of Creation, and Steve from Vermont is self evident. The attack on the article clearly stems from complete lack of NPOV and a total miss understanding of the topic at hand. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. An inherently NPOV-violating list, as amply noted above, with no redeeming features. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons very ably given in the nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Article serves only to make it appear that there is a controversy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - it seemed like a good idea at the time, but is inherently unmaintainable. Guettarda (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The list criteria seems to be inherently ill-defined, and it gives the impression of an inherently non-NPOV false balance.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I think I misread some of the !votes above, thinking we already had an article List of creationists. I would support the inclusion of such a list.  So if there is content here that is useful to that end, I would support the inclusion of such a refocused (and appropriately retitled) list.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The title itself does not seem neutral. Controversy should be debate, and evolution is the creationists term for those who oppose their viewpoint. The article has had a NPOV tag for months, yet the most recent changes have made it even less neutral, proponents and opponents when there are two (or more) sides being debated is not neutral. I would suggest a Move to List of creationists or similar, and cut out the opponents/scientific section, but I believe it is WP:SNOWing here. Martin 4 5 1  14:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but prune Many of the entries on this list do have their own pages, so I don't see why you wouldn't want to gather them together into a list like this. On the other hand, entries without their own pages should be ruthlessly pruned, so as to avoid running afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.  By this I mean that the subject of every retained entry must be a link to an independent article, and thus can be assumed to pass WP:N.
 * Answering points in the nom:
 * WP:FRINGE and WP:GEVAL do not seem applicable, if the page is limited as I proposed. Entries that have their own pages are already on WP.  We are not giving them undue weight but putting them into a list like this.
 * Criticisms about not enough evolutionists, POV commentary, self-references, and the like can be resolved by editing the article, not deleting it. Is there any mechanism for the article to be placed on probation, with deletion reconsidered if the needed fixes are not implemented?
 * The point regarding the article's What links here page seems to be fallacious. It may show that this article is not well-cited by other independent articles, but it does not show that the links in this article are primarily self-references.
 * Having a category does not eliminate the need for a list. I, for one, dislike categories and never use them.
 * --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This misses the penultimate point in the original post: "Fixing particular issues such as those above would not solve the inherent false balance the article itself suggests." We have List of astrologers, but we don't have List of participants in the astrology-astronomy controversy. A completely different article, such as a no-commentary List of creationism advocates (resembling List of astrologers) may be suitable. The purpose of the original points (it wasn't claimed that "links in this article are primarily self-references"; that is a straw man) was to emphasize that the current article as written, and most anything resembling it, is certainly not suitable. I would say that the best way to write a completely different article is to create a completely different article. If a week passes before that happens, an admin can still userfy the old article for reference. Manul ~ talk 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed because the discussion of Astrology vs Astronomy is not happening, your being a bully, your POV is showing. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Manul made some points worth discussing. Please beware of WP:KETTLE and you might consider WP:DOGGY.
 * The problem with your astronomy-astrology analogy is that there is actually an article on the creation–evolution controversy. So, again, having a list of people who have engaged in that debate does not seem out of place.
 * If you did not mean to complain that "links in this article are primarily self-references," can you explain what you did man by the comment about What Links Here? Do you mean that people judge the notability of an article by how many other WP articles link to it?
 * Finally, I'll say again that my !vote is conditioned on removing the extensive commentary, which is contrary to WP:LIST. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete / Comment Fixing the NPOV issue would involve a rather large expansion of the Science side. For starters the organizations section would need to add the ones from this list:
 * Albanian Academy of Sciences
 * National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
 * Australian Academy of Science
 * Austrian Academy of Sciences
 * Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
 * The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
 * Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Brazilian Academy of Sciences
 * Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
 * RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
 * Academia Chilena de Ciencias
 * Chinese Academy of Sciences
 * Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
 * Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
 * Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
 * Cuban Academy of Sciences
 * Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
 * Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
 * Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
 * Académie des Sciences, France
 * Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
 * The Academy of Athens, Greece
 * Hungarian Academy of Sciences
 * Indian National Science Academy
 * Indonesian Academy of Sciences
 * Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
 * Royal Irish Academy
 * Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
 * Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
 * Science Council of Japan
 * Kenya National Academy of Sciences
 * National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
 * Latvian Academy of Sciences
 * Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
 * Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
 * Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
 * Mongolian Academy of Sciences
 * Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
 * The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
 * Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
 * Nigerian Academy of Sciences
 * Pakistan Academy of Sciences
 * Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
 * Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
 * National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
 * Polish Academy of Sciences
 * Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
 * Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
 * Singapore National Academy of Sciences
 * Slovak Academy of Sciences
 * Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
 * Academy of Science of South Africa
 * Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
 * National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
 * Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
 * Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
 * Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
 * The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
 * Turkish Academy of Sciences
 * The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
 * The Royal Society, UK already in the article
 * US National Academy of Sciences already in the article
 * Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
 * Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
 * Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
 * African Academy of Sciences
 * The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
 * The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU)


 * 1359 names would need to be added to the individuals section, from this list. Note: that list only includes PhDs named Steve who have participated in the controversy on the science side. The list of individuals on the science side might become somewhat long if we start adding people who aren't named Steve. Alsee (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We should only add those named Steve if they have articles themselves. It would be interesting to see how many Steve articles there are. Stephen T. Asma, 34th on the list is the third I have found with an article. Martin 4 5 1  18:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not meant to be a comprehensive list of every creation believing scientist, nor every person who does not believe. Does the Steve list somehow prove the scientists who believe and study creation wrong? --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Who say's it is not meant to be comprehensive? There are no inclusion criteria other than participants in the debate. If 1359 people have signed up to Project Steve, then they could be included. These people don't prove or disprove creation myths, they are simply a representative sample of the scientific community. Martin 4 5 1  20:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am willing to concede to listing steve, as long as he has a wiki page, so long as the creationists can get the same break. And Keep Editing. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The criterion for the list is "participants," not just people who have an opinion. If signing on to Project Steve is the only form of participation that a certain person has engaged in, then they should not be separately included in this list even if they pass WP:N.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This page reads like the Secular Troll Church Hymnal. Psalms about how bad religion is and about the proven trueness of their ideology. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * reply - speak for yourself; I'm too devout a Christian to believe that my Lord and Savior would expect me to believe in the nonsense of the creationists at this late stage in history. I'd say that was the behavior of a trickster god; but that's an insult to trickster gods. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to List of supporters of creationism, because sometimes is good to have an overview of where the kooks are. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - long-standing NPOV-violating list of minor figures, many of them non-notable; filled with circular references; and apparently devoted to making this fringe topic appear to be worthy of serious discussion, rather than being classed with the flat-Earthers and the alchemists. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or the Newtonians! Antediluvian fools. Srnec (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page seems to me to lack some neutrality, and if we really want to keep some of this page's more relevant content, surely it can be added to the Creation-evolution controversy page to live on. wia (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Martin 4 5 1  keep or delete? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - What does it take to be a "participant" in the "controversy"? Do we include anybody who has ever written or spoken about evolution or creationism? Every comic who's been documented telling a joke at creationism's expense? Every preacher who has quoted Genesis? Every notable academic who cites Darwin? Every notable church? It's untenable and an inappropriate topic for an encyclopedic list. The article title and subject is such that I furthermore cannot foresee any reasonably specific inclusion criteria that would make the list more appropriate while also avoiding NPOV issues. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete As per Rhododendrites, there really is no clear line for who counts as a "participant". If there were an organised series of debates (etc etc) there might be, but there isn't. Also the whole title is unbalanced, because only advocates of "creationism" believe there is a controversy. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2015 (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.