Project:Nominations for Deletion

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search

If for whatever reason you feel that a page does not belong on EvoWiki, please list it on this page. All EvoWiki users can discuss the nominations on this page, and the moderators will take into account the views of all users when deciding whether to delete a page or not.

To list a page, add a link to the page to the top of the list below, and add one of the following two templates to the top of the page that you are nominating:

  • {{delete}} - This is the default delete template.
  • {{inclusion}} - Add this code if you are nominating the page because you don't think it is relevant to EvoWiki.


Good reasons for deletion include:

  • The topic is not relevent to EvoWiki, or is just not notable at all
  • The text is a copyright violation
  • You suspect the page is fiction
  • The page was created as a test (e.g. random typing) or spam -- in this case an admin will speedy delete without discussion

Bad reasons for deletion:

  • The page is badly written: the page should be rewritten incorporating the existing facts
  • The information in the page is unverifiable, and may be incorrect: first list it on EvoWiki:Peer review, and list it here if it remains unverifiable

Pages should be listed here for around five days, giving time for objections to be raised, unless it becomes obvious that the page should be deleted.

The list

Creation Science Evangelism.

The same page exists without the period in the title. For consistency with other organizations the period should not be used, so I recommend this page be deleted. --Dmill96 17:13, 19 March 2006 (GMT)


What does this have to do with the evolution/Creationism thing?

I rewrote it to be more factually friendly... Still, Evolutionary Biology does concern the environment...--Mr A. 05:12, 23 February 2006 (GMT)

What Evolution Is

Started by some creationist vandal as a short opinion, then filled with data by Apokryltaros. I don't think we need this page.

We already have a page Evolution. There is a page Creationism and an opinion page What Creationism Is (which obviously inspired the vandal). --tk (t) 11:04, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Should we blank it, then?--Mr A. 17:28, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

George W. Bush

As Apokryltaros said: Doesn't belong here. --tk (t) 12:29, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

I won't speedy delete it myself, but I don't object to somebody else doing it, clearly off topic. If you want to do things by the book though, I vote delete'. Joe D (t) 03:06, 21 February 2006 (GMT)
Okay, I deleted it and its companion. We don't have many people voting anyway...
The author just wrote another article Environmentalism, starting with "Environmentalism is a new age religion...", and I deleted that too. --tk (t) 17:25, 22 February 2006 (GMT)
I think I accidently revived Environmentalism when I was trying to make it more informative... Should we blank it, then, or keep it as a stub for now? --Mr A. 05:10, 23 February 2006 (GMT)

Generations (book)

As above. --tk (t) 12:31, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

Cosmological ID

Spam -- Nyenyec 04:27, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Not any more. Now it's a stub. --tk (t) 17:27, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

Image:P25 System Model.JPG

  • Not used on any pages, no source or copyright details, no obvious relevancy to evowiki, uploaded by person who hasn't edited anything else--could just be stealing evowiki bandwidth. Joe D (t) 00:42, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it

  • Delete. This is unsourced and not really a creationist claim so to speak anyways. Anyways, if a creationist did say that, it would seem to be an admission that their creationism wasn't supported by science. If a creationist acknowledges that, there's really no reason for their ideas to show up on the list. Let them believe what they want. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 21:25, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. Yes, it is a Creationist claim -- it just so happens that it's usually implicit, rather than something they come right out and say in so many words. What do you think the Statements of Faith used by AiG, ICR, etc, are saying, for crying out loud? --Anonymous
  • Delete. This is not intended by Creationists to be a scientific argument against evolution, and is being used as stuffing for the list of claims. Delete it. --Anonymous
Keep. The overall set of "claims" includes many that are not from scientific creationism. --Dmill96 22:55, 2 April 2006 (BST)
  • Keep. Not only is it a claim, but also a catchphrase! I've seen it on bumperstickers. I've also seen it used as an argument, though the real argument existed by implication: "If you are Christian (i.e., believe the Bible), then you must believe the entire Bible!" As such, it should probably link to If part of the Bible is wrong, none of it can be trusted. --Suttkus 23:51, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep. Virtually all Creationists I've seen continue to think that the Bible can be used as a wholely infallible textbook, with applications in both science and history.--Mr A. 18:47, 3 April 2006 (BST)


This page seems to be based on a fictional novel.

  • 4 google results, all for the book, no peer reviewed sources. I'll give the author time to defend it, but I'm currently going for delete. Joe D (t) 23:32, 11 Oct 2005 (BST)
Uh... how much time did you want to give the author? I'd say it's obvious trollery. --tk (t) 11:36, 24 Oct 2005 (BST)

God is all good

See Talk:God is all good

David Clounch

I have moved this commentary on the Intelligent Design network page to it's appropriate talk page. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 06:41, 3 Oct 2005 (BST)

Frameshift mutation

Long rambling essay which invokes frameshift mutations but seems to be primarily concerned with demonstrating a teleological basis for evolution. Also contains odd statements such as the assertion that ontogeny recaptiulates phylogeny and that the Mitochondria uses a checksum algorithm to reverse certain classes of mutations. No references are given. At best, a fraction of one paragraph (starting with "Frameshifts occur when a nucleotide...") might be salvaged as the seed for another article, but I'm skeptical about copyright status (it was also posted almost identically here; it might have originally come from somewhere else). I can't be completely certain, but I think this may be based on the fictional book "Frameshift" (search for the first paragraph with the word "ontogeny" or "second layer of information" and compare). TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 09:25, 1 Oct 2005 (BST)

Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution

Duplicate of (or at least large overlap with) Small changes do not imply large changes. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 05:39, 30 Sep 2005 (BST)

The methodology of science rules out even considering design

Duplicate of Science's method rules out design which is more complete. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 02:38, 8 Sep 2005 (BST)

An Evolutionary Look at Human Homosexuality

This page appears to be a copyright violation. A google of key sentences brings up several hits. One of them [1] seems to imply that this was originally a scientific article published by "Dr. Gregory M. Cochran". Unless the anonymous poster can demonstrate that he represents Dr. Cochran, I think this should be removed. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 23:33, 17 Aug 2005 (BST)

Category:Evolutionary Psychology

This category is redundant with Category:Evolutionary psychology. I don't exactly know much about how erroneous categories are dealt with on EvoWiki ({{cfd}} doesn't seem to be available, for example), so I just listed it here. I assume that the sole entry should be moved to the other category and the category page should be deleted? TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 08:52, 25 Jul 2005 (BST)

Creationism and evolution are not exclusive

This page has very little information on it, is handled better on Evolution is atheistic and Evolution is baseless without a theory of abiogenesis, and, if a full length essay is needed, God and Evolution is more likely to become it. I don't believe this page has any potential, even as a redirect, and apparently others agree since the only link to it is on a discussion page (possibly written by its author?). TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 08:37, 25 Jul 2005 (BST)

Agree. Delete. --tk (t) 10:58, 25 Jul 2005 (BST)

Young Earth Claims about Dinosaurs Refuted.

This seems to be an unused copy of Dinosaurs: A Faulty View. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 05:23, 24 Jul 2005 (BST)

  • Is it worth redirecting to the original? There are no internal links to it [2] Delete: it has a full stop at the end of the page name, so it's unlikely to get linked to even as a shortcut redirecting elsewhere. Joe D (t) 10:31, 24 Jul 2005 (BST)

Delete: This is just a duplicate copy of my original article Dinosaurs: A Faulty View. Crazyharp81602 User_Talk:Crazyharp81602 05:06, 24 Jul 2005 (EST)

Category: Creationist arguments

I added this before I discovered Category: Replies to creationists. It's redundant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:04, 19 Jul 2005 (BST)

Actually, it's not redundant with Replies to creationists, but it is redundant with Category:Creationist claims. Joe D (t) 10:26, 19 Jul 2005 (BST)


Joke/story. Not really relevant to EvoWiki, imo. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 02:22, 6 Jul 2005 (BST)

Intelligent Design is Wrong

Not sure if this was looked over under the If I am gay... heading, but I just thought I'd give it its own section. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 02:22, 6 Jul 2005 (BST)

If I am gay, then so is my animal.

Along with Intelligent Design is Wrong, this was created by User:Homosexualman. Both pages are a bit bizarre and have little to no substantive content (what is there is weird). Titles are sentences, which seems inappropriate for most kinds of articles (with the exception of, say, creationist arguments). I don't know if it's a vandal. Maybe this user's just a bit clueless, but think these should be removed nonetheless. Escuerdo(talk)

I have speedy deleted it on the grounds of patent nonsense. If anybody disagrees with the decision they can argue their case for undeletion here. Joe D (t) 10:31, 27 Jun 2005 (BST)


Not sure if there's a better way to handle this, but the Friendship page is just vandalism with no history. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 04:57, 17 Jun 2005 (BST)

Normally some admin will just delete it. But blanking it is fine. --tk (t) 12:47, 17 Jun 2005 (BST)

How evolution and mutation works

Looks like hogwash to me. I guess it's a new intrusion from the Marvel Comics hoaxer. --Thomas Kettenring

I did a google and found this page, which is indeed a comics site, but is in a discussion and appears to be an attempt to seriously describe the science (in a little comic-book centric way). It's not very good, though, and I don't think the author really knows what he's talking about. --Steinsky 11:36, 4 Oct 2004 (BST)
Trash it. --GFA


  • Delete: 3 Thomas Kettenring, Steinsky, GFA
  • Keep: 0


And Talk:ToDo are unnecessary now, right? There are still pages linking there, but the links should be changed to EvoWiki:To do list. tk 19:26, 25 Sep 2004 (BST)


Why is this even here? It's not science, and none of the legislation mentioned ever existed. A 19:51, 20 Dec 2005 (PST)

True. Why did you write it then? --tk (t) 12:41, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I didn't write it, I was the first one to edit it. A 20:03, 21 Dec 2005
Wow, what a strange bug... sorry. --tk (t) 10:08, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)


To list a page add a subheading with a link to that page, and a short piece about why you think it should be deleted. Sign your name with four tildes: ~~~~.

To comment on whether you agree or disagree with the nomination, add an indented comment like this, and sign your name, ~~~~.