Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution (term) (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 delete. Sandstein 09:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution (term)

Evolution (term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Quite a straightforward

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. More than a dictdef, touches on varieties and subtleties. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect seems better. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• • In much the same way a dictionary would. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Absolutely, 100% clearly a dicdef. I have no idea what article Xxanthippe is reading, because it's not this one. GliderMaven (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's pretty much an exemplary dictionary definition. The intended job of this page, minus a bit of verbiage, is being done by Evolution (disambiguation). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia has been weakening
  Democrat In Name Only. I am not a fan of this trend. However, if reliable sources could be provided for such notability, a case could be made for keeping this article. As it stands, I would either Delete or do away with WP:DICDEF and admit definitions in Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Pretty straightforward example of DICDEF. Wikipedia is not a DIC. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete
  WP:DICDEF Any non biological meaning of evolution is already covered in the field of study for example Chemical Evolution, Economic Evolution Aurornisxui (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect a DICDEF that does nothing that can't be done on
  π, ν) 00:30, 23 January 2019 (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.