Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
mention categories
d
Line 20: Line 20:
''[[User:Manul|Manul]] ~ [[User talk:Manul|talk]]'' 01:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
''[[User:Manul|Manul]] ~ [[User talk:Manul|talk]]'' 01:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists|list of Lists-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Everymorning|<font color="orange">Everymorning</font>]] [[User talk:Everymorning|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 02:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists|list of Lists-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Everymorning|<font color="orange">Everymorning</font>]] [[User talk:Everymorning|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 02:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)</small>

*'''delete''' I can see having a list of creationists; maybe we already do. I'm not seeing a list of anti-creationists. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 02:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:38, 9 February 2015

List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy

List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • The article violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE by offering a false balance between evolution and creationism. We are treated to a long list of creationists and creationist organizations, with a relatively shorter list on the pro-evolution side.
  • Several items in the list don't have a corresponding article.
  • The What links here page reveals a self-walled-garden, with all but two links being redirects back to the list itself. Such redirects give a veneer of notability where there is none.
  • At least one item (there may be others), Answers In Creation, is a redirect to another list embedded in another article.
  • Some items appear to promote fringe content, for instance a creationist who made a "prediction about comet composition, discovered by the Deep Impact Mission on 4 July 2005."
  • The article has carried the NPOV tag since September, with no resolution in sight. Fixing particular issues such as those above would not solve the inherent false balance the article itself suggests. There is little expectation that conforming to NPOV is possible in this circumstance.

Manul ~ talk 01:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I can see having a list of creationists; maybe we already do. I'm not seeing a list of anti-creationists. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]