This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion. See the related pages for templates, categories, redirects, stub types, pages in the Wikipedia namespace, user pages, or images and other media, or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers.
Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use the Twinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.
- You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.
The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contribution to the Evolution page. We realise that evolution is a controversial topic in the United States and in some other places in the world.
Many of the arguments presented by proponents of creationism or intelligent design have been presented to this page repeatedly. Generally, these arguments are based on a misunderstanding of evolution and/or lack any supporting sources. For that reason, please consider the following:
- Evolution is not a random process. Mutations are random, natural selection is not.
- A supposed 'gap' in the evolution theory is not equivalent to rebuttal of the theory and evolutionary theory does not predict the existence of intermediate forms between all forms of life (cat-dog/bird-fish etc.)
- The word theory in science indicates a well studied and supported explanation for a given set of usually undisputed observations.
- Consider that any scientist capable of disproving evolution would be assured of fame and fortune.
- We are still looking for the many scientists that supposedly support creationism or intelligent design.
- You may want to read our article on Project Steve.
- In general, back up claims that substantially change the content of the article with reliable and verifiable sources.
For common responses to creationist arguments please see TalkOrigins. Feel free to start a discussion on something that is supported by verifiable and reliable sources, but if you wish to discuss or debate the general validity of evolution please do so at Talk.Origins, because Wikipedia is not a discussion board. Thank you.
An old timer writes
Hi Daniel, It's been a long time since I used to hang out at alt.quotations. Hope you're keeping well. Anyway, with respect to the inclusionist/deletionist thing, I try not to take sides. Taking sides tend to stop things being fun, as collaboration becomes confrontation. I guess by 2006 standards I'm a deletionist. There's too much popular culture in wikipedia, too many fundamentally uninteresting schools, too much stuff, and not enough insight into stuff. (Now don't get me wrong: I adore popular culture, but one of the things I like about it is its ephemerality). The real problem is that too many people can't make your distinction between information and knowledge. I don't know what should be in an online encyclopedia, but I'm fairly certain its not 4,000 word plot summaries of every episode of Doctor Who ever made. 1,000 words on each series, seems more reasonable. There's too much agglomeration of facts, and not enough precis.
The motto "Wikipedia is not paper" has become the enemy of conciseness. There's a peculiar idea that we should cover everything we can in as much detail as (meta)physically possible, enumerating every fact about a subject, with no regard as to which are actually important and which aren't.
But those battles have been lost, and I've lost the will to fight the remaining battles using anything but mild sarcasm on AfD (again, I simply don't find being a volunteer bureaucrat a lot of fun).
The other thing that bothers me is the general standard of prose styling. Not spelling and grammar (though those are frequently dreadful), but the fact that, in the rush to keep adding facts to an article, no-one seems to be interested in writing good sentences, or putting those sentences in an order that produces lucid prose.
OK, I'm rambling now.