Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terms used in the creation-evolution debate


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was userfied as requested by Ed Poor. --Phroziac(talk) 00:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Terms used in the creation-evolution debate
The page is yet another POV-fork attempt by User:Ed_Poor. This distinction is already made on the creation-evolution controversy page and we don't need to start new pages for creationists to illustrate their own ideas. Joshuaschroeder 19:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Pilatus 20:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete CalJW 20:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Daedalus-Prime 20:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Does not appear to be any of the following: Unsuitable for Wp, original research, vanity, advertising, spam, hoax, patent nonsense, vandalism. Therefore, keep per Wp deletion policy. --goethean &#2384; 22:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What about "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" or "Article duplicates information in some other article"? -- Ec5618 23:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Qualifies for deletion as unsuitable for Wikipedia, since it is an attempt to circumvent AfDs that are in the process of being decided by the community against User:Ed Poor's wishes. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and attempting to circumvent consensus decisions is abuse of the first water. --FOo 04:10, 30 September 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.