Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernatural Intelligent Design

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supernatural Intelligent Design

Breach of WP:NOR, Original research Tznkai 7 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

• Delete: Google test results [1] support my assertion that this is an attempted at a neoglism. Text is compied straight from main Intelligent Design article--Tznkai 7 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
• No Delete:

The "Intelligent Design" page is currently heavily focused on links with God or creationism, even though the hypothesis does not actually deal with those issues.

"supernatural Intelligent Design" was an intitial attempt to split the parts of "Intelligent Design" which are focused on religion into a separate page, to allow a better representation (if possible) of the subject. Yes, the text came from the main page, with the intent that it would be eventually removed from the main text.--GodWasAnAlien 2004-July-07

• Delete, not sufficiently notable to be represented in a separate article jamesgibbon 7 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)
• Delete. OR, non-notable. The user who voted "No Delete" has 2 edits. Jaxl 7 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
• Delete - POV fork, nothing useful here that can't go in the Intelligent Design article. -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
• Delete per [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|BD2412]. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 21:22 (UTC)
• Delete original research and POV fork. Tobycat 8 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
• Delete original research. Also, any distinction between "supernatural" and "religious" is tenuous and idiolectical. I do, however, think that intelligent design (coming from the Raelians, is at least funnier than intelligent design coming the fundamentalists. Xoloz 8 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)
• Delete Joke137 23:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.