From Conservapedia

Current discussions

Lesbians

Onesided, anti-Christian view. Off to a poor start. Better combined with Homosexuality in any case. --Ed Poor 14:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. RobS 17:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Third. DanH 17:36, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

• Why are you guys posting here, about something that was deleted before you voted? Is there some point? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 18:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

---

Conservapedia:AFD Bam Margera Conservapedia:AFD Borat

Conservapedia:AFD Buche de Noel Conservapedia:AFD Chickendove Conservapedia:AFD Congressional Quarterly article Conservapedia:AFD Corky Romano Conservapedia:AFD Cornpone

Cult

I recommend that this article be deleted or completely revamped. A cult does not have to deal with Christianity, the LDS Church (Mormons) are not considered a cult and recognized by most as a religion, and the article lacks citations. ColinR 19:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The LDS has been removed from the cult list.Cracker^talk 23:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe the article should be kept but reverted to this version: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cult&oldid=36974 Sulgran 23:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

• keep It seems pretty informative, balanced, and fair. The example it uses were obviously (to everyone?) loonies, and deserving of the "cult" label. It points out that cultists never see themselves as being in one, and that it is a pejorative term. Human 21:27, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

• An entry on the subject should be here. It does not have to focus on Christian groups, but can and should acknowledge their existance. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolutionism

Kept

Delete

• This article is an attempt to tease proponents of evolution by telling them that their belief is a religion. It is unscholarly and, I suspect, merely intended to offend. As I pointed out on the talk/evolutionism page, what is the difference between this proposed religion and atheism? --Horace 00:57, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
• Sulgran 01:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
• The article is a silly straw man definition. An article on evolutionism should describe the subject as an evolutionist would. Criticism could come later. RSchlafly 02:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
• You won't find this term in any decent philosophy text. It appears to be a poor attempt at describing physicalism. The described 'line of reasoning' is simply wrong, too. Tsumetai 07:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
• Seriously delete. Article is complete nonsense. "Evolutionism is the worldview behind the 'scientific' theory of evolution." Uh, no? I can support the theory of evolution without starting at a "There is no God" worldview. There is no direct connection between religion and the theory of evolution. Sounds more like the Creationists can't accept that there are faithful Christians who support evolution. --Sid 3050 08:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
• I agree with Sid. This article is trying to make a scientific theory into a religion, something that it isn't. Furthermore, the sources given below are creationist sites which are obviously going to try to call evolution a religion to support their own view. ColinR 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep

Reading to consider for this position: Evolution is a religion, Is Evolution a religion?
These sources mention the faith involved in evolutionary thinking, and use that as an argument for calling it a religion.

• Teasing: Feeling teased can also be the result of a good solid argument that an opponent feels defeated by, therefore we must see the article to see whether it was written in a teasing way or whether it just makes sense.
  Atheism: There are many ideologies that have basic roots in other more fundamental ideologies. It doesn't mean it can't be talked about. --Ymmotrojam 01:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
• Ive never heard the term before, anywhere - creator might have made it up himself. The term Darwinism is in common use though, to describe the clear religious positions evolution implies. Perhaps rename it to that?

What 'clear religious positions?' Tsumetai 13:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep CreationWiki and Wikipedia both have an article on this subject by the way. Conservative 19:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

From Wikipedia: "particularly in the U.S.A. this term is used by opponents of the theory to bolster their claim that evolution theory is a belief, or ideology (compared with other ideological "isms"), rather than a scientific theory." Hmmm. Also, since you broach the subject, user:Conservative, you should know that you shouldn't cite to CreationWiki as an authoritative source in your manifold private articles. It's bad form to cite to other Wikiprojects.--AmesG 20:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

CreationWiki is a trustworthy wiki because it is closed. Only approved editors allowed in. I would say it's a good source. Also, it is run by the Northwest Creation Network, a creationist organization, so they control the content. --Ymmotrojam 20:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Which is just a polite way of saying it's an echo chamber. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; CreationWiki is quite possibly the single worst source of scientific disinformation it's ever been my misfortune to encounter. I suspect that is precisely because it is closed. Tsumetai 05:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Btw, we should be citing the version we used of a particular page anyways if we cite a wiki. fyi --Ymmotrojam 20:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for proving my point re bias @ CreationWiki. Allow me to cross-apply to buttress my argument for non-usage.-AmesG 20:14, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

That's fine if you disagree with it, but all I'm saying is that it's not run by children. --Ymmotrojam 20:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Certainly not children per se, but...

Anyways, it's not that I disagree with it that should disqualify it, it's that it's inherently opinionated. Or should citing to Wikipedia be allowed?-AmesG 20:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

If we didn't include sources on the basis of being opinionated, we wouldn't have any sources. The whole point is to bring in the different opinions. In other words, CreationWiki would be more trustworthy of a Creation source than would be Conservapedia. --Ymmotrojam 20:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

No, Wikipedia does NOT have an article about "evolutionism" in the sense that is being shown here. The view from here is just a side note on the disambiguation page, along with a link to a short section on the Creation-evolution controversy page. The actual Evolutionism page mentions it here and there, but overall focuses on the more general historical context. If anything, the article needs to be a lot more concise and sourced. This isn't some major controversy or misunderstanding, it's just creationists asserting things. --Sid 3050 20:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Even if wikipedia doesn't have the same style of article as we have here (and is that really automatically a bad thing??), then all that means is the article simply needs a re-write and not deletion. Mathmo 08:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"This isn't some major controversy or misunderstanding, it's just creationists asserting things."
Okay so what's the issue, the Evolutionism article can be written in such a way that it specifically says that's what creationists say. In fact it already says that now. It may not be a big thing in evolution circles, but it is in creation circles. --Ymmotrojam 20:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Quite a few parts say so, and I'm glad about that. I feel there should be a few more tweaks along the way to prevent making assertions ourselves, but the foundation is definitely there. What I mostly have issues with is the massive quote collection and the fact that the "Offensive Terminology" section apparently clashes with the sources.

But this is more a case for Talk:Evolutionism/Draft, so I'll cut it off at this point (it's also fairly late here, so I can't work on the article right now).

If this really is such a big thing for creationists, it's a good thing we got the draft going. Otherwise, we'd go through the same AFD in a few weeks. --Sid 3050 20:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

• Switching vote to KEEP Conditionally: so long as the article remains based on science and not the perceived theological outlook of evolutionists. --Cracker^talk 21:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

• Keep, at worst the arguments for deletion appear to actually be wishing a rewrite. Which isn't a matter for AfD. Mathmo 08:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

• Keep, now that it's been rewritten.-AmesG 08:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Comments

• • I don't feel teased. I merely said that the article appeared to be an attempt to tease. I still regard that as correct. --Horace 01:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Okay, then point out some quotes that you feel could be shown as teasing, and explain why. --Ymmotrojam 01:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
      • Well now that the article doesn't talk about evolutionism as a religion it is improved to some extent. But the problem is that the article is now pretty meaningless. Any belief in any set of things is a "worldview". Do all worldviews get a special name and a page in Conservapedia? Does everything from a love of hummingbirds to a belief that you shouldn't wear white shoes after Labor Day get to be a worldview? We obviously have a lot of work ahead of us if that is so. --Horace 02:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
        • I have no problem with a notability requirement here. And surely you see that this particular ideology is notable. --Ymmotrojam 02:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
          • I think it is pretty clear from what I have said above that I do not. --Horace 02:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
            • I don't know what to tell you then. Evolutionism/Creationism is one of the most discussed topics when people think of science and Christianity. Very notable. --Ymmotrojam 02:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
              • No. Not Evolutionism/Creationism. You mean Evolution/Creation. One minute you seem to understand the difference and the next minute you don't. --Horace 02:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
            • You're evading my question to show some quotes of where it looks like it was teasing. --Ymmotrojam 02:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
              • No, once I saw that you had withdrawn the claim that "evolutionism" was a religion I did not pursue that line further but I pointed out that the change made the article pretty meaningless. --Horace 02:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
• Redirect to Theory of Evolution. --Hojimachong^talk 01:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • The only problem I have with this is that Evolutionism is about the atheistic presupposition leading to the scientific theory, so therefore they are two different subjects worth two different articles. --Ymmotrojam 01:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
• If we keep the article, I suggest a more radical banning policy. Anybody who calls anybody else an "evolutionist" without proving his/her atheism (and no, "supporter of evolution" does NOT imply "atheism") should be banned. Including sysops. I believe in God, and under this article's definition, anybody who calls me an "evolutionist" is insulting my faith in God. Fair is fair, let's be consequent. --Sid 3050 08:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
• Regarding the "Evolution is Religion" junk, are you joking? How could evolution be a religion? It's something people think approximates well to how life on this planet came about. You don't see people who support it walking into buildings (hint: like churches) and singing, reading from Darwin or simply making sure that the big man upstairs isn't going to hurt them for not going into said building once a week. If you think supporting evolution is a religion, you could say that about anything - gravity, eating corn flakes, baseball... personally I think this article should NOT BE KEPT. It's not a tease, it's merely an ignorant effort to keep people away from the facts regarding evolution and advance the Creationist agenda. - Mark 12:32, 19 March 2007
  • • I'm with Sid. This is an insulting article and an insulting label. You can't call things "isms" just because you don't like them. Can we edit the article, sort of as a "preliminary injunction"??--AmesG 09:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Absent compelling reason to the contrary, I'm going to edit the article to make it passable and presentable to the world at large, and to prevent anyone from being insulted by the article before it's deleted.--AmesG 11:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you kindly. :) --Sid 3050 12:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Draft Note

I moved the article into Draft space. The current article in my eyes seriously misrepresents science by forcefully tying it to religion, and the frequent reverts with high content fluctuations show that this requires some moderation, negotiation and proper sourcing before it reaches article status.

Please note that this does not replace the AFD, it's just an additional safety zone. --Sid 3050 13:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)Conservapedia:AFD Fallen angels Conservapedia:AFD Family Matters Conservapedia:AFD George Hammond

Grok

Descision

Keep but possible future merge

Debate

Delete and Merge: should be in a page about the book, or the author. --TimSvendsen 13:12, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, one of my complaints about Wikipedia is how someone will quickly deface a new entry with a "Notice of Proposed Deletion." That's exactly what happened to the conservapedia entry on Wikipedia. Often this form of censorship reflects bias of someone about what is important to him. He may think one entry is silly, but that the outcome of the Super Bowl is important. Others don't share that view.

Regardless, what's the rush, and why these censorship notices? A simple note at the end of an entry with a link to discussion would be far more desirable.

There is no reason for speedy deletion of something that complies with our rules. Later entries can be merged to the extent desired.--Aschlafly 14:09, 16 February 2007 (EST)

I happen to disagree with both of you--

Keep the article; if I gather correctly, the word is more important than the book.

Putting an article up for deletion does not is not censorship in any form; it merely invites discussion on the validity of the article and an informed decision on whether to keep it. The bias of the individual who put the article up for deletion will be easily overruled by others. Furthermore, we should keep the delete notice on the top of the page-- not to deface the article but to further invite attention to the discussion about whether to delete it. We will not get nearly as much feedback if we hide the delete notice at the end of the entry. --BenjaminS 15:08, 16 February 2007 (EST)

• Comment Those familiar with Wikipedia should not assume that Wikipedian customs are necessarily appropriate here... or that the appropriate balance between inclusion and deletion is necessarily the same for a project with a million articles and project with a few thousand. Those less familiar with Wikipedia should be open to the possibility that a project that aspires to be somewhat similar to Wikipedia might find Wikipedian customs somewhat appropriate, and that some of Wikipedia's characteristics are the necessary consequences of open Wiki projects. Dpbsmith 11:00, 17 February 2007 (EST)

REPLY Dpbsmith's points are well taken. We reject many of Wikipedia's customs here. One custom that we reject is the practice of defacing an entry with an ugly notice of proposed deletion right at the top. This discourages improvements on entry and tends to discredit it, unjustifiably so. There is no reason such notice should be so overbearing. People should not be hit with it before reading the entry, but only afterwards. Many of Wikipedia's entry are similarly defaced, and it greatly detracts from its attractiveness and credibility. I don't want that here and doubt a majority of the other contributors here want that either.--Aschlafly 12:05, 17 February 2007 (EST)

When you say that "we" reject the custom of a delete notice on the top of an article who are you speaking for, is that a royal we? I don't think that anyone else had a problem with it. Personally I like having it on the top-- it attracts more attention to the article. If we are going to have an article up for deletion we should have the notice on the top of the page to further encourage feedback on the issue. --BenjaminS 20:03, 18 February 2007 (EST)

P.S. Don't quote "a majority of contributors" based upon your own speculation.

If We do not want to become just the same as wikipedia we have to limit what articles/Info we keep. I am not saying that it is absolutely necessary to delete this one, I just think it should be moved. --TimSvendsen 17:34, 17 February 2007 (EST)

I'm fine with some sensible limits. But I'd prefer the biblical test: might this bear fruit in the future, even in unexpected ways? Tab positions on the guitar for Beatles tunes seemed to be dead end. Grok does not. It opens the door to other entries on language, science fiction, history and culture. Our test should be one that maximizes the opportunities for growth here.

By the way, it's good to have some fun entries. That should be reflected in any test for deletion.--Aschlafly 17:47, 17 February 2007 (EST)

There are fun entries for every user. it is called their user:talk page. --TimSvendsen 19:02, 18 February 2007 (EST)

i found this article to be quite interesting and informative: I say Keep.

--BenjaminS 20:04, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Keep: Even though this word sounds like it spurred the first Star Trek convention, I think it is historically and culturally relevent. --David R 23:16, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I say Keep R.A. Heinlein is one of the most important science fiction writers in history, and one of the most vocal and important proponents of true libertarianism in the past century, I dare say that it is through his works of fiction that many people came to libertarianism (I know that’s how I first came to learn about it.) “grock” may not be one of his greatest contributions to our culture, but it is one of his contributions to our society and I say the more that people can learn about his works the better off we are all going to be. --Reginod 16:39, 7 March 2007 (EST)

KEEP Strictly speaking the word while Martian was not by a Martian but by a human being who had been raised by Martians. The book stands in the line of Heinlein's Red Planet and I think the article should be kept but perhaps edited a little to make it clearer and more precise. Heinlein stood for strong character and rugged Yankee ingenuity. He was a Naval Academy graduate and retired early due to illness. He returned to service during WWII at the Philadelphia Naval Yard where he worked on innovative concepts to win the war. I think the article is appropriate. GROK is an important word and politically and philosophically neutral. It simply means a very deep understanding of something. It was picked up and used by the flower children of the Vietnam era who raised Heinlein's book "Stranger in a Strange Land" to cult status. -- Ray Schneider March 10, 2007 EST

Keep, but consider future merges. This might fit better in a Popular neologisms of fiction or the like, for example. Grok is an important word for many reasons, and is one of the most obvious contributions of the genre to the language, but I'm not convinced it deserves an article of its own. Such an article is probably prone to inflating the importance of the word, where a general discussion of fictional words that have become widely used could retain context and scope more easily.

That said, I want to react to the conversations above. Wikipedia is successful, so it's tempting to model Conservapedia on "what we are not that Wikipedia is." This is a trap. Conservapedia should be an encyclopedia modeled on the sensibilities of a set of editors who happen to think that Wikipedia is either not the correct model, or not the only valid model. If we do this, then we will be able to establish our own identity, and not always be trapped in the shadow of that other site. -Harmil 16:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would word it rather, who think that Wikipedia, has much to teach us, and we should adopt those of its practices that are good, alter those that need it, and develop our own to suit our identity. Those who started Wikipedia might well do some things differently if they had the ability to start over. While we here are young and flexible, we should take advantage of the opportunity for growth. We should also be wise enough to know that we need not develop everything from scratch, and not be too proud to recognize that we can benefit from the experiences of others. One of the experiences we can learn from, is the inadvisability of setting too much as inflexible law at the very start. Perhaps they will even be able to learn from our experiences. DDG 23:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)Conservapedia:AFD Herb Bombgarden and the Little Yogurts

Conservapedia:AFD Homer Simpson

Conservapedia:AFD Homosexuality Conservapedia:AFD Homosphere

Conservapedia:AFD Kevin Federline Conservapedia:AFD Lance Bass Conservapedia:AFD Leeds United

Conservapedia:AFD Massachusetts Liberal

Kept & Locked: 6/16/2007

--Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 03:35, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

NAMBLA

We don't need it. RobS 16:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it could be a good article, but we should get rid of the logo as it somehow gives an air of legitimacy to pedophiles.--JoyousOne 16:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, a completely inarticulate reason. Okay, I say we do. But wait, we can't get rid of the logo, that is their official...thing. I am not a lawyer, but I believe we have every right to use it and ought to. Flippin 16:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Sure, we may have the "right" to use the logo, but I'm sure they have other "official things" that we really don't need to see. We should expand the article, wikify it, and keep the link, but ditch the logo.--JoyousOne 16:28, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed the logo to a thumb--does that help any? Flippin 16:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's have a poll. RobS 16:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Poll

Please vote Keep or Delete and sign.

• Keep--JeffersonDarcy 16:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

• Keep They're scum, but ignoring them won't make them go away. Czolgolz 16:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Keep I don't like them, but since we can't wish them into the corn or hide in the woods until the world ends, we might as well prepare people for a possible encounter. Flippin 16:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Merge with NARAL into new entry NAMBRAL and place in Category:Child predators. RobS 16:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Keep. RobS 21:01, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Maybe you should create an article on NARAL before you want to merge something with it. Your suggestion, as is, doesn't really make much sense. --JeffersonDarcy 16:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
    • I'm undecided on this one; you could learn from this if we decide to keep it. Trust me, you'll think twice before creating an article of this nature before I'm done editing it. RobS 17:02, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Keep but I don't think we should merge the article with NARAL.--Staple^Talk 16:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Keep People should be aware of them. I'm sure there are parents and children out there that have never heard of them before. DrSandstone 16:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

• Keep From a conservative perspective, we can use this to attack the ACLU. DanH 17:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Keep Forewarned is forearmed, let people know them for what they are --Trashbat 17:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
• Keep but avoid adding links to other organizations except where clearly related. That is, you would be hard-pressed to find citations linking NAMBLA with NARAL, but with the ACLU, that would not be so hard.JoyousOne 17:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Google Pelosi+NAMBLA; 34,000 hits. RobS 17:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

That still doesn't make the link. It is too tenuous to say Pelosi supports gays supports NAMBLA. But if you can find a way to do it...--JoyousOne 17:59, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

"George W. Bush"+NAMBLA gets 29,000. So that's probably not sufficient evidence. Murray 18:02, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

My house got telemarketed by a company that claimed that Ted Kennedy supported NAMBLA because he supports the ACLU (and that we did too because our long distance service donated money to Kennedy). That's too flimsy. The ACLU connection is enough. DanH 19:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete. Stupid people think that Evil can be reasoned with. Evil twists logic and perverts it.--Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete it, and move relevent contents to article Child molesting. Karajou 14:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

• We've discovered NAMBLA's activism is not limited to gay issues. RobS 15:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

• Well, that makes me feel so much better! What about the North American MAN-BOY Love Association isn't homosexual related? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:37, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • NAMBLA Bulletin, Editorial: War in Iraq?, March 2003. The date is particularly significant, as we see now this group provided leadership to the anti-War movement. RobS 17:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

• Keep and Lock This article is useful to warn parents. Geo.Talk 17:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Negro

Decision

keep

Discussion

This will be a magnet for vandalism, racism and other issues. There may come a time that this site can support such an article and develop it well. But this is no the time. Admin's are all ready spread thin we don't need to create a precedent for more problems. Tmtoulouse 15:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, thank you--a well-stated point, but not a good reason. The topic is one that may bring some vandals to the site, but more than likely it will cause people to talk. That's a good thing. Also, as people look into topics like this, they learn from them--bad info or not, they have to decide. I vote to let it stay and allow further work. Frankly, and I mean no disrespect, "admins are spread thin" is not an excuse. If so, get more admins, don't warp the project.

As far as mockery? I don't think the purpose was to mock anything. This is a perfectly valid topic from the standpoint of linguistics and culture. We ought to leave it be--and fix it. Flippin 15:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

AHD says:

Ne·gro

NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. Ne·groes

Often Offensive 1. A Black person. See Usage Note at black. 2. A member of the Negroid race. Not in scientific use.

ETYMOLOGY: Spanish and Portuguese negro, black, Black person, from Latin niger, nigr-, black. See nekw-t- in Appendix I.

If it is "often offensive," I think the best thing to do would be to make it a redirect to African American, protecting it if need be. Dpbsmith 15:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There's an article for African Americans, but not without the plural. MountainDew 16:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is this term offensive? I am not so sure. I think it is worthy of debate all on its own. Flippin 15:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as the controversy isn't hidden from the article, I think that it's a worthy article, especially because a number of people still self-identify under the term. MountainDew 16:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Redirect to African Americans? What about Africans who are not American?

BillyBoy 11:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Offensive?

not really. Jaques 10:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)Conservapedia:AFD Neocon Conservapedia:AFD Palestine Conservapedia:AFD Porn Conservapedia:AFD Premarital Sex

Conservapedia:AFD Questions or Comments

Quote mining

Decision

This is an archive of a discussion for deletion.The discussion has been completed. Please do not edit this page.
The decision was Keep --CPAdmin1 23:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Quote mining (talk, history)

Contents 1 Current discussions 1.1 Lesbians 1.2 Cult 1.3 Evolutionism 1.3.1 Delete 1.3.2 Keep 1.3.3 Comments 1.3.4 Draft Note 1.4 Grok 1.4.1 Descision 1.4.2 Debate 1.5 Kept & Locked: 6/16/2007 1.6 NAMBLA 1.6.1 Poll 1.7 Negro 1.7.1 Decision 1.7.2 Discussion 1.7.3 Offensive? 1.8 Quote mining 1.8.1 Decision 1.8.2 Discussion 1.8.3 references 1.8.4 Where is the Vote for and against? 1.8.5 For deletion of article 1.8.6 Keep article 1.9 Reparative therapy 1.10 User talk:CPanel 1.11 Exotheology 1.11.1 Delete 1.11.2 Keep 1.12 Liver 2 Deleted 2.1 Premarital sex 2.1.1 Comment 2.2 Andrew Ridgeley 3 Kept 3.1 South Park

Discussion

While there is no specific policy against neologisms here, I think this term is a difficult one to have included. Its clearly only referenced in a small circle involved in the evolution/creation debate. Its also almost always a criticism by evolution supports levied against creation proponents. I think its just way to tendentious an entry to be included here till we get some sources or evidence that it can be applied in any other context. Summary: Its not very notable, and will lead to a lot of heated, unneeded debate. Tmtoulouse 14:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

But, but, but, but... are you the same editor who uses the name Tmtoulouse on Wikipedia? (Who urges "keep" in the AfD on that topic there? Baffled... Dpbsmith 07:09, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Allow me to clarify this point. I believe that the topic is borderline worthy of an encyclopedic entry and DOES cross the line to worthy. Thats why I said keep it on wikipedia. The problem for here is exactly what you pointed out on your AFD at wikipedia. It is ONLY used in the evolution/creation community and the ONLY reliable sources will be pro-evolution degenerating pro-creation sources. Since this site would never stand for that the only way this article will manifest HERE is to use unreliable sources or totally unsourced original research and start calling things quote mines that no one else does. Basically the metarules of wiki allow a good entry to emerge there. The metarules for conservapedia do not. At the time I wrote that I felt that not having inaccurate information would be better then jury-rigging gibberish or sticking in barely tangentially related material in random articles. However, it has been made clear to me since that time that the approach that I took to increasing the respectability of conservapedia is a banning offense. My request for redress to put some control over a run away admin was met with silence. So I give up, I am not participating here further on articles, and as soon as a few meta issues that I started (like this AFD) are resolved I am gone totally.

On that note, this whole AFD might just be out of order because my argument rests on that fact that the things I fear would happen with this article and thus make it an illegitimate encyclopedic entry would NOT be wanted. But it turns out it is desired. So I withdraw my AFD, in whatever contex I can, and say keep and let the chips fall where they may. Tmtoulouse 13:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

OK. Dpbsmith 14:12, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

A Yahoo! search on the phrase "quote mining" brings up 5,730,000 instances of its use.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=quote+mining

That's hardly evidence of a term "referenced only in a small circle".

What's your real reason for wanting the entry deleted?

--Generalist 01:57, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Comment A lesson in proper search terms: http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu9mUcvJF8_IA8GNXNyoA?p=%22quote+mining%22+&ei=UTF-8&x=wrt returns FAR fewer. Now find me an example that is not related to evolution/creation debate. Thats my point and evidence. Tmtoulouse 03:57, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Even if it is only used in that context, that's no reason to delete it. My vote is to keep it. MountainDew 04:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Comment the only reliable sources you will find using it though will be evolution supporters criticizing creation supporters, MAYBE a few the other way but not much. So basically the only way to do this article is to have some heavily critical material on creationism. Its being made more and more clear that this site is turning into a YEC epistemology so I don't think that will go over well. I BARELY think it qualifies for a wikipedia article, I don't see how it will work here.

p.s. How long do AFD's run? This is the last bit of business I feel obligated to see through to the end and wondering how long it will take? Tmtoulouse 04:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)

There isn't any rule on that right now. --TimSvendsen 06:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Quote mining is a reasonable concept and exists pretty much everywhere. In any debate people will take quotes out of context in an attempt to support they're case. Politicians do this constantly. What I would like to know is why people view the term as dubious?ChrisF

Comment Find me a single source that mentions quote mining in any context other than creation/evolution, the phenomenon is everywhere, but this term is a neologism in a particular area. I happen to love the term, but don't see how it would work as a accurate, well sourced, and reliable article with a creation science sympathetic tone. Tmtoulouse 04:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Reply I never didn't mean that the term was used elsewhere, I meant the concept was used in society.ChrisF

While not literally quote mining, the concept of Contextomy is essentially the same thing and a valid concern in publications [1]

There were some links in the discussion on Wikipedia about deleting its entry. [2] e.g. discussing religion [3] "Quote mining can prove anything." or global warming [4] (which shows a specific example) -- Limulus 03:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I think we should keep this article. It's important to teaching intellectual honesty to realize what intellectual dishonesty looks like!--AmesG 10:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I also agree that it should be kept. It's a useful term and keeping it around could be a reminder to keep editors from doing it (intentionally or not). Jrssr5 20:32, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I don't really see a good reason for actually removing this other than that it's "too pro-evolution", which I don't even feel that it is. Both sides can do it. As a former high school debater, I know that tactics such as these are easy to use in debates (I did it myself back then), and I think that this article ought to remain. MountainDew 20:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

In rational and reasonable discourse, quote mining is not a technique viewed as intellectually honest or honorable or worthy. Keep the entry. Clear thinking cries out for rationales that do not depend on techniques of dubious veracity. In a Google search that excluded articles that use words such as evolution, evolutionist, evolutionists, creation, creationist, creationists, intelligent design and materialist, there are still over 800 references in relation to 9-11 conspiracy theorists, medical claims, Hollywood film publicity, etc. -- those topics within the first ten sites. Why would you delete information warning of such misuse of truth? --Letusratiocinate 22:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

references

• McGlone, M.S. (2005b). Contextomy: The art of quoting out of context. Media, Culture, & Society, 27, 511-522.

I think that there may be a misunderstanding concerning quote mining. Quote mining is a concept that has existed ever since books, papers, and intellectual journals have been written. One of the primary determinants of an accurate and honest work is the avoidance of quote mining, as it is tempting to skew sources to support whatever the writer would like to say. Anyone can find dozens of sources to support even the most ridiculous of notions. I think that the is no legitmate reason for this article to be deleted. It has nothing to do with the imaginary war between science and religion. It's about good, factual writing. There's no reason it should be deleted entirely.

Where is the Vote for and against?

I suggest a vote.

For deletion of article

Delete. Conservative 19:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Delete. Tmtoulouse 19:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep article

KEEP --Cracker^talk 23:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

KEEP -- User:Athiest

Weak Keep, but only if it can be fixed. I believe quote mining is not synonymous with taking quotes out of context (which can be done deliberately, carelessly, or innocently), but with a systemic search for supporting quotes. As such, I believe the article needs a major rewrite. If this can not be done at present, then delete. Philip J. Rayment 22:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

KEEP MountainDew 02:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep as per PJR above - Would like to see a re-write if to be kept. Otherwise Delete. D-Reg.

KEEP --Letusratiocinate 22:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep Jrssr5 11:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep --Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 07:31, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep --Hojimachong^talk 21:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep: what possible good reason, other than censorship of unwanted ideas, could there be to delete this. It adds clarity. See User:Palmd001/BiasPalMD^talk 17:10, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep To take a quote out of proper context is a powerful tool used by both liberals and conservatives alike to push their agendas. I think this article helps to show how to look through the facade and see the truth.--Elamdri 17:14, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep I believe it's balanced and relevant, I can think of no reason to delete this article, other than censorship.Middle Man

Keep. RobS 00:09, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Reparative therapy

None educational, biased, faulty. 3 Examples of biased editing and misuse of sources Talk:Reparative therapy. RobS 13:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete:Now the whole thing is biased.-AmesG_yo! 17:29, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

• Don't wish to defend your own edits, huh? RobS 17:32, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep:Just because it is biased doesn't mean it can't be fixed. Also, I don't see the point of deleting articles when they are clearly going to be recreated again. (Reparative "therapy" being a significant political/cultural issue involving homosexuality.) --Sulgran 01:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Keep: but not in its current form. Needs a major overhauling (hey, just like Ames seemed to be doing!) and much more content!

Comment: It would appear that once again a more concise, less biased, better structured article is going to be scrapped rather than added to. The current revision (22:26, 30 April 2007 Ed Poor) has little of the content that some of the previous versions had. I would also point out that the examples of biased editing seem very tenuous and certainly don't require the revert of the entire article, which seems to have happened here. MatteeNeutra 12:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Keep: I don't understand any of the 'reasons' given for deletion. Is the topic unsuitable, the writing bad, or what? --Ed Poor 21:49, 7 May 2007 (EDT)Conservapedia:AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Conservapedia:AFD The Periodic Table Of The Elements Conservapedia:AFD Tom McMahon Conservapedia:AFD Tori Amos Conservapedia:AFD Trumpton Conservapedia:AFD Trumpton Riots

Conservapedia:AFD USS Nautilus Conservapedia:AFD Uncyclopedia Closed due the fact that this is an official page

User talk:CPanel

This page seems to be totally useless. I have posted several times. On the first occasion my post just disappeared. The other two posts have just been ignored.

What is the point of this page? --Horace 01:26, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

• Hmmmm, there doesn't seem to be a page. Even so, Ed has restored your link, Horace. What's up with that? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:37, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I will lock this page if my posts are deleted again. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)Conservapedia:AFD Walford Conservapedia:AFD Wars France lost Conservapedia:AFD Weatherfield Conservapedia:AFD William Hung

Conservapedia:AFD Chanty wrassling Conservapedia:AFD False Jesii Conservapedia:AFD Jings

Exotheology

Delete

The entry has nothing to do with the title, save the first sentence. It lacks any proper sources (the ones given don't support what's claimed on the entry at all!) and many claims are speculative or simply opinion. ColinR^talk 00:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Seconded. Most of the material should be merged with UFO. But it looks like Andy and Conservative want to get this one on the front page by tomorrow [5] so who knows? Lambchop 00:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That's the name for the belief in life in outer space. It is from Time magazine, a liberal publication. Do you have a better alternative?--Aschlafly 00:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you sure you don't mean "Exobiology", which even its own enthusiasts admit is a 'science without a subject"? --BobD 00:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Funny, the Time articles cited explicitly refers to exotheology as the theology of outer space, not the belief in ET life. Moreover, the article 's entire point is about the effect ET life could have on God. And even funnier is how the liberal publication's article entire point is how ET life could even reinforce the Christian God. ColinR^talk 01:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete. The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between exotheology and the study of extraterestial (sp?) life. Nevermind the fact that saying alien life is a liberal belief, this article is embarassing to have on the front page.

Delete. The article itself reads very confused, and the passing swipe at a 'liberal belief system' speaks for itself. --Wikinterpreter

My main argument is that this article is certainly not good enough for the front page, where it is currently being referred to from. Embarassing.--PalMD^talk 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete. This article is trash. Exotheology probably doesn't deserve an article. Exobiology certainly deserves a better one. Ga ohoyt 17:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete, or at least fix it. Very little of the article actually addresses the stated subject, which is a form of speculative philosophy, not a science (or pseudoscience). The sources are also kind of lacking. I found a few hits for exotheology through Google and Google Scholar. There's a fair amount of popular information on exotheology, and journal articles by Hoffman and Haught. It shouldn't be hard to write a good exo-t. article. But I wouldn't want to use this as a starting point.--All Fish Welcome 19:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete, article dosnt even define what exotheology is, it allso contains some claims which the citations dont confirm, for example the last one about most scientists doubting existence of life outside earth. Allmost nothing on this article has anything to do with the topic. Timppeli 19:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete. This article is shockingly bad, and an example of hte mocking traffic it brings in can be seen in the section below. Great job putting in the front page :-P -AmesG_yo! 21:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete The article is irrelevant as if there were extraterrestrial life, it would be mentioned in the Bible. -Roofus 00:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Delete Clearly, the (round rubber things that vehicles use and trigger the spam filter hahahahah) grind slowly, and, as this article shows, none-too-finely. I'm so glad it hasn't been deleted yet, though. It warms my heart with glee, it really does. But I still have to vote for 'delete', because really, I like a lot of non-whackjob conservatives. MyaR 23:15, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Delete I had attempted to write something intelligent here (exobiology), which unfortunately was wiped out without even a trace in history by "Conservative" sysop, who then locked it. If Conservapedia wishes to have this article contain some number of paragraphs representing the christian fundamentalist POV, that's great. But to assert a fundamentalist approach to this issue and refuse any other view a hearing, is to exclude the vast majority of American christians and American conservatives, and gives a false picture of conservatism to those who might be taken in. I don't mean to be insulting, but even if the Bible is literally true in every single word, it doesn't define whether or not something is a science or a pseudoscience, both of those being concepts invented long after John wrote the last word of Revelations.

Keep

The author explains the title, and has good sources for it. And the article, by whatever title, has a definite place here.--TerryH^Talk 09:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

We should document the debate about spending vast amounts of money on the ideological crusade which is SETI. Exobiology isn't science at all. Good on Aschlafly for pointing that out. --Pacman 10:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

This is the same argument they made against funding the Columbus expedition. The bible never mentioned any "new world" Lambchop 10:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Nonsense, the exploration of the new world was based on the common sense observation that the world was round and partially unmapped, combined with extrapolating from the observed fact that humans were widespread in the known world. It was entirely reasonable to send ships to trade with and explore the blank bits of the map.

By contrast, exobiologists concoct a fantasy version of space that is the exact opposite of what has been observed. The hard science of it is that the universe is big and empty. --Pacman 12:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Nor did the Bible define the world (cosmos) as limited to the Eurasian-African contiguous land mass. And even the inhabited world (oikoumenes) could stretch to fit.

What the Bible has no warrant for is extraterrestrial nation-states and civilizations. If you want more details, see my article on extraterrestrial life.--TerryH^Talk 12:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

STRONG KEEP Conservative 13:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Care to elaborate on that? Why? Wikinterpreter^talk?

The author does not explain the title at all! The subject of exotheology has nothing to do with "the psuedoscience of ET life." It's about how outer space affects theological issues. Break the word down into its roots, exo and theology. Heck, even the articles cited explicitly state that exotheology is the theology of outer space. Not belief in ET life. ColinR^talk 16:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep. DanH 19:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Leave it up. It shows newbies to the site a VERY good idea what to expect from the rest of it. --BobD 20:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

omigawd. Please, please, please keep this article. I have already copied it because I suspect it will be deleted. I need the proof because my co-workers will not beleive me. You know, some sites have referred to conservapedia as "stupidpedia," and here is the proof! AK1053287

Keep per the two votes above. While some of us run around creating small articles about things in the real world, there is a subset of this site that is "classic". This article is definitely one of them. Human 15:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

• Keep. RobS 17:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

• Why?

Liver

The article on livers confused the liver with the kidney. I think we should start over, or get User:palmd001 to write it. --Ed Poor 09:31, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

• If Liver is deleted, then the original article, entitled Livers should be even more deleted. I see no harm in deleting both of them. Dpbsmith 15:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

If asked, I'll work on it.--PalMD^talk 15:48, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Deleted

Conservapedia:AFD Britney Spears Conservapedia:AFD Producerism Conservapedia:AFD Sadly no Conservapedia:AFD Sathieism

Reminder to sysops: If this page is deleted and restored, it needs to be reprotected.

Premarital sex

Page shows clear bias and obscene amount of negative criticism regarding very personal matters. - davwav02

Also, it does not exactly seem family friendly, does it? - Splark

Delete- I agree. ColinR 21:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Delete Generally I'd say leave it and flesh it out giving it a well-rounded discussion. But seeing as there isn't a sex article having one on premarital sex seems silly.Cracker^talk 21:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Save Premarital sex is a sin, and people must be warned about it. Not having such an article is ignoring something that occurs in this world.

Save It needs to be reworked though. A family-friendly slant would be needed for it though, sort of like the sex page. Or perhaps just include it in the theoretical future sex page, which would make a lot more sense thinking about it.--Ronnyreg 22:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Delete- What sort of encyclopedia has an entry on premarital sex? In any case, the only relevant part of the definition is the first sentence. The rest shows a confusion between defining a thing and approving or disapproving of it. --Horace 22:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The Catholic Encyclopedia talks about it a fair bit. --Mtur 22:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

To teach that all Christians, Jews and Moslems have always regarded it as sinful is appropriate, and we can start building pages on human sexuality here. The various ways in which Ezekiel has been interpreted belongs on a more specialized page. Let us simply delete that part for now. DDG 23:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly has already said "no" to these types of articles, and I will be deleting it soon, unless someone can go persuade him quickly. --Hojimachong^talk 23:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Save It's kind of funny that homosexuality has an entry but discussions of other sexual topics are forbidden here. Talk about a Freudian irony! --MoeLarryAndJesus 19:43, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

• So, even though at the top it says "kept" it has been deleted? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Comment

Looks like a delete and protect of some sort. --Ed Poor 21:43, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:AFD Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness? Conservapedia:AFD Jack Of All Trades Conservapedia:AFD Jack of all trades

Conservapedia:AFD Fulchester Conservapedia:AFD Image:X mark.jpg Conservapedia:AFD Inbreeding

Conservapedia:AFD DuckTales Conservapedia:AFD Cheesy potatoes Conservapedia:AFD Bertie Higgins

Andrew Ridgeley

Pure celebrity fluff.--TerryH^Talk 09:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Deleted. --Ed Poor 13:08, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:AFD Cookie Monster

Delete Not Encyclopedic content, and really not important enough to have an article on. --TimSvendsen 23:30, 9 February 2007 (EST)

Keep Xbox 360 is alright because it made some major break throughs in graphics and stuff. Will N

• Comment:

The Encyclopaedia Britannica is interesting to check, because it is a traditional encyclopaedia, written by credentialed experts and controlled by a small number of professional editors.

The online website does not an entire article devoted to the Xbox 360.

The Xbox 360 is mentioned briefly in a section on computer games in an article about Computers and Information Systems, which is not in the main encyclopedia but in the 2006 Yearbook[6].

• If Conservapedia wants to be an encyclopedia like the Britannica, it should not have an article on the Xbox 360.

• If Conservapedia wants to be a teaching vehicle for middle-school students to learn by doing, maybe it should have an article on the Xbox 360. Writing any article uses writing, organizing, research, and study skills, and students working on a topic for which they have a personal enthusiasm may learn more than they would learn working on a topic they have been assigned.

• If Conservapedia wants to be a cleaned-up version of Wikipedia, it should have an article on the Xbox 360. Dpbsmith 10:29, 10 February 2007 (EST)

P. S. Personally, articles on specific brands, models, and manufacturers make me queasy. Companies like Microsoft spend a lot of money trying to turn consumers into enthusiasts. Too many Wikipedia articles read like advertising. I can imagine a real encyclopedia saying "Marconi made many improvements in radio technology, particularly in coherers" I can't imagine it saying something like "In 1902 Marconi Corporation introduced the revolutionary all-new Rotomatic XT-63J Coherer, with patented AutoTapping action. The ultrapure silver and nickel in the XT-63J provided unparalleled sensitivity, while secret ingredient M7 prevented clumping. The model XT-63Q, introduced the same year, provided the same famous Marconi quality in a value-priced package."

In the grand scheme of things, the Xbox 360 is just a video game. Its introduction was not a major event in world history, even if Microsoft advertising might lead you to think so. Dpbsmith

I agree with Dpbsmith. It might be good to mention it in some other article later, but for now Delete --TimSvendsen 10:15, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Not sure what my opinion is on this especially since this project has not yet developed a coherent theory of what to include and excluse. However Dpb's analysis seems accurate. I'd note also that there are some gaming systems which have had some historical impact and might be more worth having articles on (such as the early Atari systems). That does not seem to apply to the Xbox. JoshuaZ 02:44, 14 February 2007 (EST)

This has been posted for almost a month and nobody made any major arguments to keep it, and nobody made an effort to improve the entry. If niether of these things happen soon, I am going to delete it. --TimSvendsen 10:15, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Delete Delete it. This article will just lead to more advertisement. Maybe we can mention it in an article about Microsoft or Bill Gates. But as an article of itself, it is useless. --<<-David R->> 13:06, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Delete Agree with Dave PhilipB 15:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I think it is a shame that this article was deleted because it is 'Not Encyclopedic content'. While i understand that this site was primarily created to counter wikipedia's liberal bias on big issues, pop culture and trivial content should not be seen as unimportant. You cant expect kids who search for info on gaming consoles on wikipedia not to use the same resource when they need information on more important subjects. Yes the x-box article was pretty crappy, but it may have been the stub for a better article on the subject. Mick V Template:AFD:Beatles TABS for Guitar

Kept

Conservapedia:AFD Agreement

South Park

Result --- Keep

Not encyclopedic content.--TimSvendsen 19:20, 24 January 2007 (EST)

• Why isn't it? It is a vulgar cartoon, but that doesn't mean we have to have a vulgar article about it. We just need to expand the article to suit the ideals of Conservapedia. David R
  • We do not want to have an article on every cartoon or TV show because A) there are so many of them. B) We are not a movie/TV review site. C) number 10 on our list of examples of wikipedia bias is the following "10. Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." An entry on South Park, (or any cartoon or TV show) does not have educational value. entries like that are one of the reasons that we criticize Wikipedia). --TimSvendsen 22:27, 24 January 2007 (EST)

He is right; there is no reason to have an article on south park. It is not informative and i doubt whether all the information you could gather on it would be encyclopedia-worthy.

--BenjaminS 22:58, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Hey, then go ahead...Delete it; I'm all for it. South Park truly has NO educational value. I am just saying that deletions could quickly get out of hand. Wikipedia exercises its deletion policies way too much. Let's not be them. David R

We Have over 3000 entries, and have deleted 1 so far. That is less than 0.04%. I do not think that deletions are getting out if hand. Actually I think Wikipedia's Deletion policy is not strict enough. --TimSvendsen 23:12, 24 January 2007 (EST)

• You have got a few I thinks in there. Well I know their deletion policy is biased and exercised too freely. I know that if we make trivial deletions, things will get out of hand. But this discussion is traveling WAY off topic. I say delete it. David R

• • What I was Saying is that Wikipedia has lots of articles that should be deleted, but are not. deletions will not get "out of hand", because we controll them. what do you mean "trivial"? --TimSvendsen 14:35, 25 January 2007 (EST)

This article has no educational value and is not encyclopedic content, so I think it should be deleted. There are plenty of places on the web for such information, but an encyclopedia is not one of them. ~ SharonS 12:56, 25 January 2007 (EST)

The article should not be deleted. The article gives concise and useful information. Since South Park is a cartoon that is overtly political and unfortunately popular, it has an influence on popular culture, and it affects the political views of many of its audience members. South Park’s popularity and cultural influence make this article both relevant, and ‘encyclopedic.’ --EWJ 17:48, 26 January 2007 (EST)

OK, I have no problem with keeping this article as long as we create rules about what TV shows/Cartoons/Movies/Etc. we will allow. --TimSvendsen 15:34, 7 February 2007 (EST)

South Park is just a waist of time. Will N

• Comment:

The Encyclopaedia Britannica is interesting to check, because it is a traditional encyclopaedia, written by credentialed experts and controlled by a small number of professional editors.

The online website does not have an article devoted to South Park.

South Park and its creators do get a single-sentence in a (rather interesting) discussion U. S. television animation in a portion of the article on "Animation: Contemporary developments"

U.S. television animation, pioneered in the 1950s by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera (Yogi Bear, The Flintstones) was for years synonymous with primitive techniques and careless writing. But with the debut of The Simpsons in 1989, TV animation became home to a kind of mordant social commentary or outright absurdism (John Kricfalusi's Ren and Stimpy) that was too pointedly aggressive for live-action realism. When Mike Judge's Beavis and Butt-Head debuted on the MTV network in 1993, the rock-music cable channel discovered that cartoons could push the limits of censorship in ways no live-action television productions could. Following Judge's success in 1997 were Trey Parker and Matt Stone with South Park, a series centred on foulmouthed kids growing up in the American Midwest and rendered in a flat, cutout animation style that would have looked primitive in 1906. The spiritual father of the new television animation is Jay Ward, whose Rocky and His Friends, first broadcast in 1959, turned the threadbare television style into a vehicle for absurdist humour and adult satire.[7] Dpbsmith 10:21, 10 February 2007 (EST) Dpbsmith 10:23, 10 February 2007 (EST)

I vote keep for now, maybe later it can be merged ito an article called "influential cartoons" or something. --TimSvendsen 19:43, 14 February 2007 (EST)

• I agree very strongly with TimS. Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 19:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I say delete. It does not have any value whatsoever, let alone educational value. Just a potty-mouthed cartoon for small minded people. --Rafael

Just out of curiosity, who here has actually watched more than one episode of South Park? --Hojimachong^talk 19:24, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

• I watch it regularly. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 19:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)