Deletion of Creationism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment: unless this becomes an actual article. (No-one say "give it time" please - you don't have to post something to Wikipedia the moment it enters your head). Currently a list of external links with introduction, violating 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: first, let it be said that contrary to ScienceApologist's accusations '''I did not create this fork'''.  This stub was a consensus reached decision from a previous discussion on whether or not to include a popular creationist claim regarding the second law of thermodynamics in the second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics Wikipedia entry.  It was decided that the issue, being a significant minority view, was nonetheless best put somewhere else and Creationism_and_the_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics|this stub for it was created.  See for instance Talk:Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Mediation|this mediation section and especially the end of Talk:Second_law_of_thermodynamics/creationism#Comment|this section.  The link BTW ScienceApologist is referring to is owned by me '''but it is not a personal web page''' (i.e. it is not ''about'' me, it is about science, philosphy etc. and contains no actual |vanity content).  It is also not original research, as it consists of more than a dozen verifiable citations.  I have had a dispute with ScienceApologist before, and he is now trying to remove web pages of mine both here and from the ontological argument section.  I didn't actually put the link there (some other user did, apparently finding the page useful) but ScienceApologist wants it removed nonetheless.  You can find out about that dispute Talk:Ontological_argument#Removed_link|here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:VANITY)

Comment: This appears to be a POV fork and possibly . Any real new content could be added into Creation-evolution_controversy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: per ,  and POV fork.  And it's very, very small, there is no problem at all containing this much text in one of the several existing articles on creationism.  The fact that it's apparently viewed as a placeholder for even more such nonsense is also a good reason to get rid of it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)