RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith | Result: Keep[edit]

Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete[edit]

  1. Tiny stub that can't be expanded further. DïämöńđDïsc1 (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    I doubt that it couldn't be expanded further. What makes you say that? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. It's fairly missional and I think it can be expanded (even if it remained like it is now it's better than nothing). Christopher (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Clearly missional and an improvement over no article - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Missional stub =/= delete. Missional stub = expand and improve. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Lots of room for expansion here. Any article about a book, assuming it's within our mission, has not-a-stub potential. 109.204.116.189 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC) (Sophie, still CBA logging in)
  5. Per all. Expansion is much better than deletion. Even if this is a short article that can't be expanded, it still provides enough information to be a fairly useful resource. It even provides some sources, and I'm opposed to removing an article with that sort of content. Stubs aren't inherently bad; it's the articles that are low-effort stubs and contain no meaningful information that are the problem. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

Goat[edit]