Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unguided evolution


 * 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. From the votes, I count an approximate 81% ratio for deletion. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 06:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Unguided evolution
Note: This article was originally at unguided evolution, but has since been moved to Relationship between evolution and divine guidance as a compromise after an extended dialogue between myself, Ed Poor and several other involved parties. Ambi 16:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is a WP:FORK of evolution from a perspective of creationists. The idea of "unguided evolution" is one that is claimed to be an atheist scientific view that eschews god. It is a creationist neologism, unsupported by any citations that refer to it as a term and is serving as another platform for User:Ed Poor to conduct original research on the subject of creationism. The article has no content worth saving save for a few points that are already found on the various pages this one forks from (e.g. creationism, creation science, intelligent design, evolution, and creation-evolution controversy). --Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Content forking/POV forking is not OK here. If this is Ed again, he's now done this what, three times? More? More than enough, anyway. This is troll behavior, and as such is conduct unbecoming to an administrator. --FOo 05:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely unnecessary page... It's just another way of saying regular old evolution, the article contains nothing of any eductional value that isn;t already found in one or more of the many other articles on evolution and/or creationists opposing it. DreamGuy 05:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. FeloniousMonk 06:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete if this isn't a POV fork, I'm not sure what is. --Brendanfox 06:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as necessary as Guided creation. - RoyBoy 800 06:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure POV fork, with a nice dose of OR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Joshuaschroeder. Neologism. --JPotter 08:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (this is one of six POV forks, btw, most of which have been redirected) &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 14:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - keep up the bitching, and I'll start using the block button. Rob Church Talk 15:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems to be a good, well researched description of some largely theological views of evolution.  As non-mainstream science, they don't really merit much coverage in evolution, and they don't belong in creationism either.  It may be that a merge with other articles would be advisable, but that's an editing matter.  There is no good reason for deletion here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of places where theological views of evolution are already discussed better than this article. Theistic evolution is a great example. Creation-evolution controversy is another. What content do you see on this page that isn't found on those pages? --Joshuaschroeder 18:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a POV fork of evolution; an attempt to shift the concept widely known as "evolution" to a new name (one that is little used; it only gets 650 odd Google hits despite all the screeds written on this topic, suggesting that it's something of a neologism) to support the intelligent design POV. Furthermore, all this content is already covered in the evolution article. Ambi 15:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC) Keep, as long as rewritten at new title. Ambi 16:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. However, it seems to be used by "the people out there", so i think "Unguided Evolution" may at least be mentioned and described in Evolution. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 15:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ignoring the personality issues, this is a subject (even if a controversial one), we should have an article on it. The Land 16:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a POV fork if this makes the claim of being as notable as evolution. I think it is a used term and should be kept, but should have relatively fewer incoming links.  I think the article explains who uses this term... I don't see the problem. gren グレン 16:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV forks of Evolution are all too common. --GraemeL (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Although googling for finds only 553 hits,  finds 35,400. The concept clearly exists, and as long as it's accurately presented, we sure want an article about it. Alternatively, merge with what should be at Guided evolution and possibly move to a better title. Zocky 16:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We already have theistic evolution and intelligent design. Please explain to me how guided evolution is different. --Joshuaschroeder 18:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Zocky, "guided evolution" is arguably Intelligent Design. "Unguided evolution" is simply evolution. That's why its a POV fork. A Google of evolution + guided + unguided - did you look at the returns? They were all, or very nearly all (I didn't follow *every* link returned) about the difference of Intelligent design and Evolution. We already have those articles. KillerChihuahua 16:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There is merit in the argument that a sane person who accepts that evolution is a real phenomenonon does not necessarily have to accept that it is impossible for some intelligent being to have tampered with it. In that light, believing in unguided evolution is a stronger version of believing in evolution. But that sort of info belongs in evolution. Rather, I see this as a dicdef++ article, like we have for many terms. There seems to be enough to write about the usage and meaning in different contexts. Zocky 18:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per A Man in Black. KillerChihuahua 16:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC) adding and change redirect of "Guided evolution" to poinht to Evolution to prevent this kind of POV fork again. KillerChihuahua 16:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; POV fork that is at best a neologism. Covered better by other pages. &mdash; RJH 18:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - A neologism would not have as much information or provide as much insight into a creationist argument. If this information duplicated or were shorter I would suggest a merge but I found the article interesting and useful.  My only complaint/suggestion would be to provide a "warning" at the top of the article to make it clear that this is only one viewpoint and is disputed by all other parties. (I have the opposite view of Articles for deletion/Evolutionary materialism)-  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Last time I looked at policy, Wikipedia doesn't provide warnings, with the exception of "spoiler" warning, and that's being debated. KillerChihuahua 18:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's why I put it in quotes. We have plenty of disputed warnings, NPOV warnings, spoiler warnings, ... I'm sure there are lots more.  If we chose to explain sides of an ongoing argument (and I think we should) it behoves us to tell the reader what side this is. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is a side at all, then it is a POV fork and should be deleted. There is no debate. KillerChihuahua 19:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If that were true then Pro-life and Pro-choice should be deleted as POV forks of the Abortion debate? No, because they are worthwhile articles.  Articles that  are POV should be corrected but articles  about POV views are encyclopedic. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Those aren't POV forks of abortion debate, they're articles about movements. "Unguided evolution" is not a movement; it's an idea whose origin begins with Ed Poor. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid topic. Also, the policy of wikipedia to cut separate articles from larger ones when they grow too large. mikka (t) 19:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not the policy of wikipedia to create duplicate articles by splitting off personal essays when your desire to promote a given point of view is frustrated. - Nunh-huh 20:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete simple POV pushing. Vsmith 20:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid topic. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork. Fredrik | tc 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete  per nomination. Jtmichcock 03:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * delete as per nom.--nixie 04:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and other reasons listed above. -Parallel or Together? 05:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've been involved in this whole creationism vs. evolution debate for at least five years now and I found this page worthless, biased, and contributing nothing to the discussion. This is a POV fork if I ever saw one.  --Cyde 06:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Setting aside all POV arguments, Wikipedia policy opposes forks.  A fork with a notable name would merit a redirect.  It is highly unlikely that anyone would research this subject on Wikipedia using the title of this article.  Whether we like the subject or not we have to be fair. Durova 06:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork and very disturbing behaviour on part of author in attempt to thwart consensus. --Last Malthusian 09:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all POV forks. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cyde as POV fork. Turnstep 20:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - redirect to evolution, and include a brief subsection under Social controversies ..dave souza 07:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork, essay of original research. By the definition of science, all theories of biological evolution rely entirely on naturalistic explanations. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 10:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork. I'm particularly disturbed by User:Ed Poor's statement below that this AFD is an invalid request.-gadfium 18:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Be careful what you say about Ed, or he might get someone to stop you. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 19:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * delete as POV fork. If these views are notable then they belong elsewhere, in the creationism, ID entries. Pete.Hurd 07:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ed Poor does it again, with yet another POV fork. --Calton | Talk 00:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR, POV fork. MCB 04:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork. Bikeable 00:05, 29 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion
The article is a WP:FORK of evolution from a perspective of creationists. The idea of "unguided evolution" is one that is claimed to be an atheist scientific view that eschews god.


 * No, actually an scientific view that eschews God's intervention. Either you know this, and are deliberately lying, or you (like many of our readers) are unaware of the distinction, in which case this is a highly valuable article! User:Ed Poor 10:31, 2005 November 23


 * This statement belies an unfamiliarity with the issues involved. It is your own opinion that this is a "scientific" view. If you look at the associated literature you will find that this is not the "scientific" view at all. In fact, look at the articles this forks from. --Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a "scientific view" you say Ed? Well, in that case you should have no difficulty citing some papers from recognized, credible scientific journals that use this term?  Do you realize that neither of the two external references you supplied use this term?  Why is that?


 * Ed, suggesting that someone who expresses disagreement with you is either uninformed of lying is impolite. I gather you are an administrator, so I am very surprised that you aren't setting a better example.  --  Geo Swan 00:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a creationist neologism, unsupported by any citations that refer to it as a term and is serving as another platform for User:Ed Poor to conduct original research on the subject of creationism.


 * So is Intelligent design a creationist neologism, and we have an article on that.  User:Ed Poor 10:31, 2005 November 23


 * Red herring. Intelligent Design is a movement that is recognizable and notable as a subject that people agree they adhere to. When was the last time, for example, a New York Times article was on "unguided evolution"? Or for that matter a Washington Times article, if you're into the Moonopoly media? --Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you need more citations than are in the article, more can be supplied. There is no Wikipedia policy which says that an article which has an insufficient number of citations should be deleted. How many do you personally require, before you would withdraw your request for deletion? User:Ed Poor 10:31, 2005 November 23


 * I don't need more citations because the article itself has no basis for existence as a content fork. --Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have asked you repeatedly to explain what you mean by original research and/or how any of the evolution terminology articles I've worked on in the last month or so constitute "original research" - you have never answered, merely told me peremptorily to read WP:NOR. Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? I wish you would stop accusing me of things without providing any reasoning or evidence! User:Ed Poor 10:31, 2005 November 23


 * Original research means that you are writing based on your own perspectives and ideas based on the subject. You are clearly not an evolutionary biologist, but yet claim to be able to describe the different kinds of "evolution". This is your original research crusade and your anger about being called out on it only serves to convince me that your are personally trying to impose your own brand of creationist POV here at Wikipedia. --Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The article has no content worth saving save for a few points that are already found on the various pages this one forks from (e.g. creationism, creation science, intelligent design, evolution, and creation-evolution controversy). --Joshuaschroeder 05:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have asked you at least a dozen times to show where points you said are worth saving are already to be found on pages such as those you list above. You have never answered these queries. And if the info is worthy of inclusion in these hard-to-find places, why should it not be consolidated in one place? Only an someone pushing an anti-Creationist POV would want to censor this sort of information. Pushing any POV is grounds for a block. I think you already know this; but if you don't, I'm telling you now - officially - as an Admin. User:Ed Poor 10:31, 2005 November 23


 * You are the one pushing a POV, your own, in this article. I am merely pointing out that we have other articles on these subjects that are more visible and can be editted by you. However, you seem content to create forks. --Joshuaschroeder 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I am content to do so (please see Content forking) as long as Evolution and related articles fail to clarify the Relationship between evolution and divine guidance. If you want to censor Wikipedia, you won't enjoy being here. Why not give up your quest to PROVE that evolution is (a) true and/or (b) compatible with religious views, and join me in writing unbiased, balanced articles? Uncle Ed 17:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I am surprised to see an admin using the 'censor' argument. If we are to assume good faith, no editor is trying to censor wikipedia. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Invalid request - template will be should be removed, and page locked. This is a matter for an RFC. It doesn't matter whether I'm "involved" or not, this is a matter of Wikipedia founding principles. Uncle Ed, closing administrator 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. I asked Ed whether he was in fact closing the AfD debate on IRC, and he said he wasn't. The Land 16:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment And I wasn't going to say anything before, but this comment pushes me over. It's really freaking disturbing to see an admin make these kind of comments. Wikipedia founding principles do not say "admins get to push their own POV into any articles they want and threaten other editors when they complain". I would suggest that Ed simply remove himself from all Evolution articles since he is unable to deal with the encyclopedic standards and consensus on these issues. DreamGuy 17:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Thoroughly agreed with DreamGuy. Ed's conduct here is far, far beyond what is acceptable from a Wikipedia administrator. He's now not just threatening, by the way -- he actually did block Joshua, although another administrator unblocked him. Ed has systematically destroyed any pretense upon which we can continue to assume any good faith on his part. --FOo 19:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Concur with DreamGuy also. Ed cannot seem to maintain neutrality or remain reasonable regarding evolution. I agree that he should recuse himself from this subject, and possibly create a website elsewhere if he feels his POV must be heard. WP is not the forum for this - and his abuse of admin privileges in order to push his POV is disconcerting, to say the least. KillerChihuahua 19:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And what POV do you allege I am pushing? Please answer, or stop making personal attacks. Uncle Ed 22:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, the view of the Unification Church on evolution by natural selection. "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism"  -- a quote from a Jonathan Wells, a leading intelligent design proponent, unificationist whose words appear alongside yours on that website. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 23:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why am I singled out for a personal attack warning on my talk page? I concurred with another user, and the same point has been made by at least half a dozen on this page. This is not a personal attack, and shouting at me on my talk page is hardly the most polite way of saying that you think I am in error. KillerChihuahua 23:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)