Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The science of Intelligent Design

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 of the debate was REDIRECT to

• Redirect I tried to redirect twice already and explained the reasons on the author's talk page [1], but they reverted, I asked again and got no response. Regardless I think this is a pretty clear redirect. - cohesion★talk 04:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps they wanted to emphasize the POV of ID as science? Jacqui ^★ 15:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This afd nomination was
  Cryptic (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect POV fork. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Intelligent Design --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 12:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  Intelligent Design. Jacqui ^★ 15:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  Intelligent Design. Anville 15:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to
  Intelligent Design.--Isotope23 19:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect oxymoron title as above. — RJH 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect the fork. Joshuaschroeder 01:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or even delete. It's a POV fork. FeloniousMonk 02:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (it seems unlikely that someone will type this in while searching for ID) or Merge if there is anything here which isn't already covered in the main article. Guettarda 13:36, 3 November 2005 (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.