Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says we shouldn't have articles on individual words. (Although of course there are some exceptions.) In this case it's a minor word which doesn't get used much and doesn't even have a definite meaning, being used to mean different things by different people. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Anybody interested in reality might begin with the rather straightforward text: Carneiro, Robert, Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History ISBN 0-8133-3766-6.

It is interesting to see how the evolutionist sects have managed to erase the truth that they hate. But I will not object--no more than I would object whether the Christians or the Muslims win the Crusades. Rednblu (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mr.~~ Dr. Carneiro seems to be talking about people who believe in Sociocultural evolution.Steve Dufour (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Carneiro definitely is not talking about belief. Rednblu (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...Maybe I should have said something like "people who tend to focus on societal development in their social anthropological studies." Or perhaps I miss the whole point of his book title. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked out Dr. Carneiro's article, thanks for the link. He seems to describe his own theories about the rise of civilizations as "evolutionism." If the article is kept this use of the word should probably be mentioned too. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article documents and discusses, with third party sources, a fairly prominent creationist claim that evolution is an ideology or religion (an "-ism"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that evolutionism means different things to different people is what makes the article more than a dictionary definition. The term has a history, and is used as a weapon in the creation-evolution wars. The article will remain of minor significance, but it has no policy problems. Sorry to go offtopic, but I noticed some changes at Evolution (term) which may interest people here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the politics behind the term may be wonky, but the fact of its existence and notability seems be inarguable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far more than a dicdef. The fact that (in the nominator's words) it "doesn't even have a definite meaning, being used to mean different things by different people" is precisely what makes the concept/phenomenon worthy of an article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion seems over-the-top to me, but at least, the use of the term "evolutionist" needs reconsideration in this article. An evolutionist may be a scientist who studies evolution (just like a biologist is a scientist who studies biology), or someone who (passively) adheres to the theory that organisms do evolve over time (which is the case for 97% of the scientists but for a significantly smaller percentage of non-scientists, according to a source cited in the article), or someone who actively promotes evolutionary thinking (like Richard Dawkins). Apart from these three fairly neutral meanings, there is of course the non-neutral use of the term by some creationists. 132.229.234.111 (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with thanks to the nominator for his courtesy notification, but incomprehension at his nomination. Per comments above, more than a dic-def. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Creation–evolution controversy and merge any content that may be useful. I'm going by the example of the abortion-related pages on Wikipedia - "anti-choice," for example, redirects to "abortion debate" rather than redirecting to "pro-life" or having its own page. Since "evolutionism" is a term used by opponents of teaching evolution, I think the same treatment would make sense. Roscelese (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me. The main fact the article presents, that creationists use the word "evolutionism" to put down people who disagree with them, is certainly notable and should be given on WP. I just think that a dedicated article on the word itself is against "not a dictionary." Steve Dufour (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection is a bad idea, I believe. As the first alinea of the article indicates, the term "evolutionism" has or at least had a meaning apart from the Creation–evolution controversy. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other meanings of the word could be explained in other articles.Steve Dufour (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one would never see if coming by the proposed merge/redirect. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evolutionism Steve Dufour (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this context? Not much. See also http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/human. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christianity etc etc ad nauseum. Any one word titled Wikipedia article has a corresponding wiktionary entry. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 08:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP has an article on Christianity (to use one of your examples), it could also have an article on the word "Christian" since the word itself is important enough. Right now it has an article on the word "evolutionism", it doesn't have an article on evoluntionism itself since (as I mentioned in the nomination) the word has various meanings. The way it seems to be used in social science might well be more notable than its use by creationists, which is the main focus of the article now. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This evolutionism article may not be perfect, but it goes some way beyond a mere dictionary definition and, on reading WP:NOTDIC, I cannot imagine how it might require the deletion of evolutionism. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but to exclude any article on a term just because the term might also appear in a dictionary would rob us of lots of perfectly good encyclopaedic articles; we might as well use WP:TRAVELGUIDE to delete The Bahamas. bobrayner (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The evolutionism article is far more informative than a dictionary definition, though it could use some clean-up. Darwinism and other "isms" have their own articles, and even if evolutionism is a pejorative instead of a widely accepted term, it deserves its own article, too. WoundedWolfgirl (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep per WP:SNOW. Clearly a misguided nomination. SnottyWong ^prattle 20:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snottywong: WP:SPEEDYKEEP and WP:SNOW are completely different, and non-overlapping. Citing the latter as a reason for the former simply devalues both. I would wish that somebody I generally agree with (and agree with on keeping this article) would see the difference. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, you are right. Struck "Speedy" above. SnottyWong ^spout 20:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a common enough word to deserve an article. Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.