EvoWiki:Nominations for deletion

From EvoWiki

The procedure for nominating articles for deletion has changed. Please read the revised guidelines.

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 the following template to the top of the page that you are nominating:

{{subst:delete|Reason why}}

If the page is obvious nonsense, vandalism or spam, you do not really need to list it here, unless it remains undeleted for a long period of time, in which case the admins may have missed it, of if somebody disagrees with its deletion. If it is not obvious that the page should be deleted, however, add it below to the "uncontested nominations" section.

If you think one of the articles listed should not be deleted, move it to the "contested" section, and start a new discussion. Those agreeing that an article should be deleted, need not add a supporting comment to uncontested nominations.

Admins: if an nomination remains uncontested for a week, it may be deleted. If, a week after objections are raised, a 60%+ majority remains in favour of deletion, it may be deleted, and the discussion removed. If a majority favours keeping the article, the {{delete}} template should be removed, and the discussion archived to that article's talk page. If there is no clear majority, the discussion time may be extended.

Guidelines

Good reasons for deletion include:

The topic is not relevant 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

Uncontested nominations

User for v.
Article

Article. Reason why. Mr A. 06:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

-->

Contested nominations

It is a site that supports evolution and makes fun of right wing creationists, I think it is relevant to evolution in popular culture even though it isn't a scientific site --142.167.221.105 15:28, 26 June 2007 (BST)
I vote "keep," I don't think that it will harm anyone here. Plus, it may allow us alternative views on how to deal with pseudoscientific absurdities.--Mr A. 14:03, 13 July 2007 (BST)
Uncyclopedia often parodies creationists. And creationists accuse that editors of Unyclopedia clearly hates cretion. See it on Creation wiki

Carbon dating gives unreliable results for objects older than about 5,000 years‎

Page is much the same as Carbon dating gives inaccurate results. Plus, creationists rarely state a cut-off for carbon dating - declaring it to always be inaccurate.

Wieland Whines About Dinosaurs and Their Dominance

The entire Wieland claim has already been refuted with: "The earth is 6000-10000 years old," "There was no death or decay before the Fall," "Man and dinosaurs coexisted," and probably others that I can't be bothered to search for. The quality of the article is pathetic and includes many personal attacks. It is of my opinion that the article is not worth rewriting and deletion is preferred. --Jesse 10:31, 9 July 2006 (BST)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't know I wrote a bad article until you brought it up. my apologies for writing the article in a way you don't approve of. I did all that in response to Wieland's claim as told on the AIG page. I didn't realised I put in many personal attacks on the article just like what you claim what the article has. Looks like I got carried away when I wrote the article. My apologies for writing such a bad article. I'll look at the article again and make improvements on it as best as I possibly can.--Crazyharp81602 17:28, 9 July 2006 (BST)

Okay, I've been meaning to bring this up for a while, but found it difficult to do so as I really hate getting into confrontations. However, since it has come up on its own, I'll bite the bullet and wade into the crossfire.

Much of Crazyharp81602's contributions to EvoWiki are far, far too antagonistic. Now, EvoWiki does not have a policy on civility that I can tell, but there has been a call for one. See: EvoWiki:Discussions#Policy: Civility. This has not generated much discussion, but I cannot tell whether this is due to a general lack of interest in such a policy or simply because the discussions page itself seems little frequented. (For instance, see my efforts to drum up some discussion about banning anonymous posters.)

Nobody knows more than I do just how satisfying it is to really lambast the willfully ignorant for their refusal to deal with reality, but there is a time and a place, and if EvoWiki is to seem an intellectual resource, then it must be neither. The very first sentence of the main page spells out that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias do not usually call people stupid or idiots, even if they are.

I do, however, reject Jesse's suggestion that redundancy of argument is an issue. Just because the individual arguments are rebutted already doesn't mean that a page responding to a particular creationist document isn't a good idea. It should, of course, link to the individual pages on the specific arguments, but an essay form response to creationist documents fills a niche. I know that if I was, say, looking to respond to Anne Coulter's latest parroting of ID boilerplate, I would like to find a page debunking it entirely rather than having to type every claim in to find the page responding to it.

At the risk of sounding self-serving, I would use my page, Henry Morris' Fossil Sorting Predictions in "Scientific Creationism" as an example of how to respond to specific creationist material. (Though, perhaps, it could be toned down in places.) Morris is never directly insulted, and while the distinction may be fine ("...this is so utterly and totally wrong it's hard to understand how Morris thinks he can get away with it."), but it is an important one. The insults to the arguments stem directly from the arguments themselves being at variance with reality. Morris is insulted solely because he maintains arguments that are revealed to be stupid, he is not called stupid independently of the arguments. This makes all the difference in reader perception.

Too often, Crazyharp's response to a creationist claim is solely that it is stupid. This is usually in the cases where, to those of us familiar with the material and the evidence, he feels no further explanation is necessary. However, I would maintain that there are no such cases on EvoWiki.

I am greatly concerned that too often Crazyharp's contributions will be seen by lay readers as little more than emotive, knee-jerk rejection of creationism, such as creationists always accuse us of (despite their constant usage of such rhetoric themselves). The articles need cleaned up.

The articles need to be titled directly reflecting the titles of the creationist essays being rebutted. "Wieland whines about dinosaurs" is accurate, but inappropriate.

Attack the arguments, not the arguer, no matter how much he deserves to be called an utter moron.

Present one rebuttal (or at most a few) to a creationist argument, then link to the general rebuttal page. This makes the response essay neat and still provides maximum information.

Some subheadings would be nice, making it look clean and professional and not just one long block of onerous text.

Remember, folks. The creationists may claim the moral high ground, but we have it. We don't need to sink to their level. We have the facts, the evidence, the arguments, and reality itself on our side. We don't need to get into the mud with them to hash this out. The only reason we should ever get in the mud is to look for neat, mud-living life forms like crayfish.

--Suttkus 20:05, 9 July 2006 (BST)

Well said. I sorry for all the retoric I made about the creationists in my article I made for this site. Looks like I've got work to do on correcting many mistakes I made when I write articles for evowiki.--Crazyharp81602 21:04, 9 July 2006 (BST)

Edit: I'll rework the article and remove emotional remarks made about what Wieland wrote in his article. I'm going to put it on the same page as the old article yet add a new title to it. Fell free to check it out and see if I made improvements on it or not. If you find something that needs to be corrected please let me know.--Crazyharp81602 23:56, 9 July 2006 (BST)

Edit: Done! Now what do you think?--Crazyharp81602 00:09, 10 July 2006 (BST)

I shall check it out in a little while. Perhaps the entry should be listed on the peer review page until the dust settles? --Jesse 00:26, 10 July 2006 (BST)

Example

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, ~~~~.

EvoWiki:Nominations for deletion

From EvoWiki

Guidelines

Uncontested nominations

Contested nominations

Contents

ToDo

Biblical contradictions

Uncyclopedia

Carbon dating gives unreliable results for objects older than about 5,000 years‎

Wieland Whines About Dinosaurs and Their Dominance

Example

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Toolbox