Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science and God


 * 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. The title as been redirected to Relationship between religion and science. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Science and God

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article reads somewhat like an essay. Any encyclopedic content should instead be added to the relevant articles listed at Outline of theology Noiratsi (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Far too much like an essay, it's a duplicated topic (as per nom), and bits of it smack of WP:OR. It was nominated for deletion just 5 minutes after it was created (which is not good procedure), but in this case, it probably doesn't matter as it's a duplicated topic. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Definetely agree. Reads like an essay and duplicates existing topics. Original content. Vacation nine 20:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you take a look at the list of references you will see that several books are written about this subject, there is an article with the name "science and religion" but its is mainly about the relationship of various religions and science, as you know every religion has its own view of God. Its is also very different from the article "existence of God". There is actually a section with the name "science and God" in a library which I have access to. unfortunately you didn't spend a minute reading the article. It is not an original research almost every sentence in the article is "referenced material" from a list of books around the topic. Besides other editors may help improve the article. I don't see why we should delete it? Kiatdd (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I hadn't noticed before that an existing article at Relationship between religion and science already presents a perhaps more encyclopedic view of the topic --Noiratsi (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * When we discuss about "science and religion" we mean Christianity, Islam, Buddhism,...etc,etc and the way they are related to science. The meaning of God here according to kenneth Miller is the creator or designer of the universe and how science especially modern branches of science such as genetics and physics relate to it. Here we aren't interested at all in studying whether or not Buddhism teachings conflict with science. We aren't also interested in historical aspects such as scientific achievements of Islamic countries in the past. We like to differentiate between "religion" and "God". On the other hand, we want to avoid creationism which some consider pseudoscience. Creationism is like saying the universe was created a few thousand years ago and trying to find geological evidence for it!. Kiatdd (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the article at Intelligent design, and the many relevant articles linked to therein? I understand your comments, but I still feel that the content, or at least the topic area, of Science and God is almost certainly documented elsewhere in the enyclopedia. I suppose we could use the page to present a list of the various articles which bear on the topic? --Noiratsi (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The series of articles about this topic is a long list including Intelligent design(ID). If you look at the first line of the article Intelligent design you will notice that ID is a form of "creationism" promulgated by the "Discovery Institute". It has political issues. I don't think that when Isaac Newton was commenting about the topic he meant intelligent design or he cared about Discovery institute. I agree that some of the articles in Wikipedia cover similar topics such as articles about God ,Creator, deity, ...etc,.Kiatdd (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think this article can be saved with a little re-wording so that it isn't quite so essay-like. Duplicate material can be linked or deleted. I believe I understand the intent of the article to outline the subject matter in a way that can be done without lumping the content in with any particular religion or "Intelligent Design". I would encourage the proponents of the article to quickly do this if they want any comments to keep the article, otherwise it is pretty much doomed if left as it is. I will hold my opinion to give editors a chance to do this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * An essay is an article that reflects someone's "personal" opinion about something. Do you mean that the article reflects my personal view? The article has a section of contrary views to comply with Wikipedia neutral point of view policy which can be expanded and the section "notable scientists" can be expanded to included several other individuals. We also need a few more editors and more time here. I insist that almost everything in this article is referenced and is not synthesis of a new theory therefore it does not meet the Wikipedia's criteria for deletion and the page can be improved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Kiatdd (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have read your whole article and I can see why you argue that it does not meet deletion criteria. I'd like to link to some Wikipedia policies, to help you understand why people are describing the article as an 'essay'. Firstly, the article seems could be accused of giving undue weight to the pro-God viewpoint, especially since the anti-God view is explicitly titled "Counter-arguments". Secondly I think the tone of the article could also be made more impartial - the paragraph on Newton for example is heavily weighted by the inclusion of the sentence "whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe". Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, the article seems to go expressly against the guideline that you should not avoid existing neutrality debates by creating new articles. In fact, this very topic area is the one given as an example for that section of Wikipedia policy. I agree that the article does a good job of citing its sources - perhaps other editors could give some examples of the passages they think constitute original synthesis? --Noiratsi (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for your comments, however I would like to point out a few more details. Intelligent design(ID) and several other related articles are already classified as pseudoscience actually there is no debate here. we tend to avoid creationism too, we all agree that the earth was not created a few thousand years ago and we do not believe that there is scientific evidence for Noah’s flood. If you have a look at the Creation-evolution controversy article you will notice them. Therefore, WP:CFORK (content forking) doesn’t apply here.The name of the article implies that the article is not about a particular religion therefore it doesn’t promote a particular religion, however I agree with you on the neutrality of point of view (POV). But we want to make sure that we don’t delete articles simply because we have a different POV. As an example, we didn’t delete the article Existence of God we put a subsection of evidence against in the article instead. If an editor thinks that a passage from an article is provocative or simply wrong he or she can edit the page. There is also a talk page for every article in Wikipedia. Some comments may be from pro-ID guys, Michael Behe I think is pro-ID but maybe we can still have his comments here because he is a scientist. I am afraid but I don’t see any rational for deleting the article, I think it can be improved with editing and probably a talk page.Kiatdd (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable topic in theology, which has certainly gained a lot of momentum since 1990  - there have been numerous books written on the subject, and people may remember the Radio Four series "Science and Wonders" presented by Russell Stannard on this topic. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Science and religion. This is basically an essay that replicates that existing topic and borders on being a content fork. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. As per Tom Morris. 1292simon (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Would you please give more detail about why the article looks like an essay? Which line or paragraph? thanks.Kiatdd (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2012 (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.