Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Creationism

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 speedy keep, as not even the nominator wants deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Creationism

Article amounts to a relentless diatribe against a subset of Scientific creationism with exactly one webpage from 1996 documenting this group even exists. Author reverts attempts to bring article to a more neutral point of view. Endomion 04:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this is not a "group" its a full fledged movement. Endomion, this looks a lot like you tried to make edits that did not meet consensus or some other criteria and this is a sour grapes nomination. KillerChihuahua 05:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - well referenced, verifiable, notable article. Having one's edits reverted is not a valid criterion for deletion. Guettarda 05:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge -- Article documents a recent response by scientific creationists to legal setbacks. "Neo-creationists" by themselves are not sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. Endomion 05:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Since this is AfD, am I correct in interpreting a "merge" vote by the nominator as a withdrawal of the nomination? As per the GFDL, a merge requires that the article be kept. Guettarda 05:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • A merge would upgrade the article from a hit piece while retaining the objective information. Endomion
      • The point is that merges aren't the point of AfD's. You should only nominate an article for deletion if you think it meets one of the deletion criteria. Guettarda 06:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Perhaps I was persuaded otherwise during the voting. In any event, a merge will result in this article being deleted. Endomion 06:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
          • No, if content is merged the article must be kept because it maintains the edit history, which must be kept under the GFDL. On the other hand, if you mean this page, then no, it's kept as a historical record. Guettarda 06:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep New but significant topic, related to intelligent design movement. Despite Endomion's claim, Google returns 948 hits for neo-creationism and 350 hits for neocreationism. Google scholar lists a small but credible number of scholarly references on the term [1]. Not huge numbers, but significant enough to warrant an article, particularly since neo-creationism is a relatively new development, less than 10 years old, etc. Also, AFD is not the next step when your edits fail to gain traction for whatever reason. FeloniousMonk 05:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- That the nominator thinks this is a subset of creation science is mystifying. That ID has been described as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" is a well-known claim that has been repeated often. This is the cheap tuxedo for all to view (whether you agree with the label or not, it still exists). --ScienceApologist 09:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Given that neo-creationism continues to get press coverage, this artcle is needed as a reference for those seeking knowledge into exactly what neo-creationism is, why it is different from scientific creationism and how it incorporates the ID movement. Jim62sch 10:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: Nominator did not do due diligence... dudes. I wikified the article a bit with sections. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 December 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.