Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple Designers Theory

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Multiple Designers Theory
160 google hits suggests a literal neologism. Article is in such poorshape its impossible to tell if it could have merit in the future. At best, should be merged with Intelligent Design Tznkai 16:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The theorist mentioned in the article seems somewhat notable. 230 google hits on exact phrase "Richard B. Hoppe" with term "wikipedia" filtered out. --goethean &#2384; 16:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Marskell 17:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This is a commonly discussed concept (using this exact name, and the abbreviation of MDT) among those at the ARN forums (an ID website).  Unsurprisingly, it is ignored by those who espouse Intelligent Design because it is counter to their creationist viewpoint.  As such, it is something I am familiar with on a day-to-day basis.  Whether it is applicable as an article on Wikipedia is perhaps more debateable.  Its principal application is potentially in diagnosing multiple authors for documents (which may include programming code).  From this it should be translatable into a useful tool for those interested in researching ID.  Noisy | Talk 17:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Noisy. --goethean &#2384; 20:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Let me make this clear.  This is not a theory as in scientific theory.  No research into intelligent design creationism has ever been done, and nor will there be, because there is no evidence to support it.  Now, if it were really about identifing authors of documents from their style of writing, I would consider.  As it is, it's unreferenced pseudo-philosophical bollocks. Dunc|&#9786; 20:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Update - Noisy has rewritten the article, although a good summary, IMHO it just shows up its major deficiency - it is simply not notable. It is not recognised as science, philosophy or theology by those academic communites or found favour as a popular religious belief.  The idea I think can be better discussed as a short sentence or two in intelligent designer. Dunc|&#9786; 15:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete MDT is a clever approach to pointing out some of the flaws in ID, a combination of reductio ad absurdum and parody.  However, I don't see that it deserves an article of its own in Wikipedia.  It might deserve a mention in Intelligent Design, though. --Macrakis 22:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dunc. The comment about it being popular on a webforum is the strongest possible evidence of neologicity. -Splash 22:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; Evil foul smelling pseudoscience without references | Celcius 00:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have expanded the article (for what it's worth).  Dunc and Splash fail to understand where MDT is coming from, so hopefully this will clarify.  My defence of the topic still remains weak.  Noisy | Talk 11:08, August 27, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.