Deletion of Science and God

Comment: to Science and religion. This is basically an essay that replicates that existing topic and borders on being a |content fork
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: I have read your whole article and I can see why you argue that it does not meet deletion criteria. I'd like to link to some Wikipedia policies, to help you understand why people are describing the article as an 'essay'. Firstly, the article seems could be accused of giving |undue weight to the pro-God viewpoint, especially since the anti-God view is explicitly titled "Counter-arguments". Secondly I think the tone of the article could also be made more |impartial - the paragraph on Newton for example is heavily weighted by the inclusion of the sentence "whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe". Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, the article seems to go expressly against the guideline that |you should not avoid existing neutrality debates by creating new articles. In fact, this very topic area is the one given as an example for that section of Wikipedia policy. I agree that the article does a good job of citing its sources - perhaps other editors could give some examples of the passages they think constitute |original synthesis
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:IMPARTIAL||WP:NPOVVIEW||WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: Thanks for your comments, however I would like to point out a few more details. Intelligent design(ID) and several other related articles are already classified as List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Religious_and_spiritual_beliefs|pseudoscience actually there is no debate here. we tend to avoid creationism too, we all agree that the earth was not created a few thousand years ago and we do not believe that there is scientific evidence for Noah’s flood. If you have a look at the Creation-evolution controversy article you will notice them. Therefore,  (content forking) doesn’t apply here.The name of the article implies that the article is not about a particular religion therefore it doesn’t promote a particular religion, however I agree with you on the neutrality of point of view (POV). But we want to make sure that we don’t delete articles simply because we have a different POV. As an example, we didn’t delete the article Existence of God we put a subsection of Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God|evidence against in the article instead. If an editor thinks that a passage from an article is provocative or simply wrong he or she can edit the page. There is also a talk page for every article in Wikipedia. Some comments may be from pro-ID guys, Michael Behe I think is pro-ID but maybe we can still have his comments here because he is a scientist. I am afraid but I don’t see any rational for deleting the article, I think it can be improved with editing and probably a talk page
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: Fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTESSAY||WP:OR)