Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Darwinism

Neo-Darwinism

Creationist POV fork of modern evolutionary synthesis. Deleted once and redirected to modern evolutionary synthesis for 3.5 years, recreated today by agressive POV edit warrior refusing to recognize WP:NPOV, particularly its WP:UNDUE clause. Odd nature 20:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/restore redirect There are also serious WP:OR issues with the article as it currently stands. JoshuaZ 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. This article is better covered elsewhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced we need two articles that are so similar.--Filll 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is a new page, not a restoration of the old one, which I have put a great deal of work into. There is nothing in the least bit aggressive in my approach, which has been to explain what I am doing and why in advance at all times and at great length. Sadly, certain editors persist in labelling me as a creationist, despite my insistance that I am anything but that. The alteration of the original page to a redirect was done without notification or flagging on the page, and was not in line with accepted reasons for creating a re-direct. Quite simply, neo-Darwinism is a term with a long history of use, and much current use, both by leading evolutionists and by opponents to evolutionary theory. It is not another term for Modern evolutionary synthesis but differs in very important respects, as I have fully explained on both talk pages. It therefore does not meet any of the criteria for becoming a redirect. I have some support for this view, and given time I expect more, and I am quite prepared to seek consensus, but I believe the proper place for that in at neo-Darwinism and not Modern synthesis. I reject suggestions that the term is somehow "obnoxious" (as one editor puts it) or associated with Creationism. It is not. It's a perfectly legitimate term. In any case, turning it into a redirect is not a valid way to challenge the content of any page. This is most certainly not a 'POV fork'. It does not present an alternative view of anything, in fact I am keen to separate out the term to make the article Modern synthesis stronger, as at the moment the latter is self-contradictory as explained in the talk. No cogent case has been made for OR, or POV, or UDUE, despite requests. There is no OR, and the cites are primary in that they are given as evidence of useage, not in support of useage, see my explanation in talk. --Memestream 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork and OR. Didn't we go through this before? Jim62sch 21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what cited material there is might make a reasonable section in History of evolutionary thought, since this material is primarily a discussion of how a term has been used through the history of evolutionary biology. However, better sources are needed that discuss the usage of the term directly. Most of these citations are not to reliable sources - primarily web encyclopedias, a creationist website and personal webpages. Tim Vickers 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not yet convinced on the need for this article, and do think it could be cleaned up a bit, but to call Memestream an "[aggressive] POV edit warrior" seems unfounded and sounds to me like a personal attack. Although there are creationists who use this term, so does Dawkins. Using the term does not make you a creationist and to imply so is frankly disingenuous. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah no it's not. Disingenous is trying to present yourself as expert on evolution while citing creationist sources, employing creationist tactics and arguments and constantly and aggressively trying to rewrite evolution articles from a creationist POV. He's certainly looks, walks and quacks like an aggressive creationist POV warrior. ornis (t) 22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He claims to have an interest in evolution, not be an expert (as far as I can tell). He has already admitted that he didn't realize those sources were creationist initially, and some of those cited sources are from Richard Dawkins. Again, if you are going to accuse him of being "an aggressive creationist POV warrior" (no doubt implicitly citing WP:SPADE), I think there should be evidence to back up what comes off to me as an unfounded personal attack. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well maybe in future you should look more closely.[1] ornis (t) 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: Looking at what links to the article might be insightful for some people. Note also how the term is used in those articles. There is no doubt that the term is used by creationists, but note that words like queer and even atheist have a history of being used pejoratively. I would strongly argue against any 'speedy action. 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhocking (talk • contribs)
Delete - Merge relevant content into History of evolutionary thought per Tim Vickers.--Danaman5 21:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & re-redirect, transfer any salvageable, reliably sourced, material to History of evolutionary thought, per Tim Vickers. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically nothing worth salvaging from this POV fork. Creator understands neither NPOV, NOR or RS. ornis (t) 22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]