Deletion of Evolution as theory and fact

Comment: I also see this nomination was  by an editor who strongly disagrees with the theory of evolution and is using the AfD process as part of a 'battle' against it. Note this quote from the article's talk page also "This page breaks the rule against original research. The opening paragraph has nine sources for one statement. That is by definition original research." The nomination also claims that only two statements are sourced which is simply not true. I ask the closing Admin to look at this nomination carefully as I am convinced it is simply disruptive
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: to Evolution where it merits a paragraph at most.  We don't need a huge article on this fine point of language per 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: I see no  problem.  There are many high quality references to eminent life scientists and other notable scientific opinions published in |reliable sources.  The article is clearly using these sources in a manner consistent with the authors' intention.  Also, I disagree with JJL's characterization of the article as an essay.  This is a notable distinction, particularly in creation-evolution polemic, and as such is clearly deserving of its own article.  See, for instance, Casey Luskin's report at the Discovery Institute: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/is_evolution_a_theory_or_fact.html part 1, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/is_evolution_a_theory_or_fact_1.html part 2
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: as a  nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: the article topic is clearly notable, as evidenced by the citations for its central premise -- and these same sources also provide verification for the body of the article. The accusations of  are nonspecific and, as such, do not even (as yet) form a basis for altering the article, let alone deleting it wholesale
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)