Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/The Descent of Man

The Descent of Man
As a serious educational resource, I believe wikibooks should not be hosting modules that give false impressions of the origin of mankind. The unsubstantiated claims of evolutionists have no place in this project. Instead, we should be focusing on the science of Intelligent Design, which is widely recognized by the scientific community --RoseW. 23:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Sorry to burst your creationist bubble, but the number of respected scientists who put any credence in intelligent design can be counted on one hand. And none of them are biologists.  In addition, I suspect this is a troll-  the account has 3 total edits, all of them today on this issue.  --Gabe Sechan 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just joined Wikibooks, and I do not appreciate you calling me a "troll." If you think that my opinion is unworthy simply because I do not have a high number of edits, you are sorely mistaken. --RoseW. 01:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We have had a number of what might be called "sock puppets" or "project crashers", depending on how you feel about that, which have not really been involved with Wikibook nor understand the policies on Wikibooks. VfD have also been started as a form of vandalism, where somebody has used the Wikibooks VfD forum to continue a fight that started elsewhere.  Generally a very brand new user to Wikimedia projects is highly unlikely to get involved with a VfD discussion, and instead play in the sandbox for awhile and make a few changes to some basic content before coming here and getting involved with the political side.  It is almost unheard of for a brand new user to start a VfD thread unless they are already a Wikimedia veteran or are another Wikibook regular who has just created this account to hide that they are indeed trolling.  As I can't find any user with the name RoseW or RoseW. on Wikipedia, Meta, or Commons, I have to assume this is a troll here as well.  You may be a legitimate user, but from experience it suggests otherwise.  --Rob Horning 13:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep We can cite well resprected scientific articles, books, etc. on evolution. If you can write a Creationist/Intelligent Design book with scientific citations; go ahead. It would fall under the classification of "textbook" if you got the citations. --Dragontamer 01:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think that this book would do well to be renamed "Evolution", or something more specific. Also, more citations is always a plus. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - While I would agree that this needs to have better citations and should use some cleanup of the content to make it more NPOV, I fail to see how this is a serious problem for a topic as a Wikibook. We already offer many other philosophy books here on Wikibooks for a variety of topics, and this one seems to be likely to be a lightning rod for controvercy in terms of content.  Still, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be written in the first place.  --Rob Horning 16:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A book that says that Darwin supports evolution is not a problem. --Kernigh 23:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent point. Maybe we should get a citation system going on for Wikibooks? --Dragontamer 01:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - If that even exists. I thought Wikibooks did not continue voting on brand-new-user VfDs. -Matt 19:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know whether (as some have suggested above) RoseW. is a troll, that is really beside the point.  A book on evolution is more than acceptable here.  Such a book can have NPOV issues, but I do not see them in the book as it stands.  If RoseW. wants to write a book on intelligent design I can find that acceptable.  Such a book can have NPOV isssues and may well be a magnet for NPOV problems.  Since we don't have a book on intelligent design, obviously, it's NPOV issues have yet to arise. :-)  I do have some reservations about The Descent of Man as it reads rather like a high school book report (my appologies to its author).  But that's a reason to fix the book, not to delete it.  --JMRyan 19:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Kept - Due to the fact that no new points have been added for more than a week and the general concensus seems to be to keep this content here. This doesn't mean that POV issues shouldn't be dealt with, but having content of this nature can be useful to the mission of Wikibooks. This discussion can be archived in about a week. --Rob Horning 19:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)