Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurst v. Newman

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. JIP | Talk 07:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurst v. Newman

An ample illustration of why writing articles about current events goes wrong. This amounts to a minor skirmish in the war on science that religious fundamentalists are waging, and is now fizzling out.

It is being settled out of court. Basically, a schoolboard decided that they could show creationist videos to their schoolkids, consisting of some young earth creationist videos and some intelligent design creationist videos under the banner of "philosophy" to get round the whole Edwards v. Aguillard thing. Americans United noticed and sued, and now the schoolboard have settled out of court (the course is being stopped).

Since it did not go to court, it does not become any case law, and is no more notable than all the other anti-science endeavours such as legislation that is being pushed by those with certain interests. (see http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?year=2006 for those just this year).

The most remarkable thing, actually, has been the Discovery Institute's flip-flopping from crying "censorship!" to "we don't think you should be mixing our brand of creationism with another brand because we pretend harder that ours is science" and now, after it has been settled, they've flopped back to crying "censorship!".

• Delete - Guettarda 20:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Replace article with Dunc's summary and tag for cleanup. Ok, that was a joke. Delete. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- but I think KC was on the right track. Jim62sch 23:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Not only did it settle, it settled after seven days. The ink hardly had time to dry. --Thunk 23:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• I created this page, thinking that it could easily become as big as Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District since it took place in another state and judicial circuit and involved an elective (not mandatory) course being taught (allegedly) as philosphy, not science. Since it did settle so quickly, I won't argue against deletion. But could the summary information about the case at least be preserved somewhere else, e.g., in a list of minor battles between creation and evolution? Does such a page exist? --User:Karn 20:18 UTC 21 Jan 2006 (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.