Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case Western faculty survey on creation and evolution


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 06:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Case Western faculty survey on creation and evolution
Report on a piece of original research that pushes a particular point of view. Francs2000 22:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Tonywalton | Talk 23:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, for same reason as above. --Gafaddict 23:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. And how do opinion polls fit into an encyclopedia? - Dalbury 01:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Vote withdrawn. - Dalbury 19:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's from Ed Poor, quelle surprise. --Calton | Talk 01:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see any pushing of editor's POV in this piece. It seems (I say "seems" because the article does not contain nearly enough information to allow verification) the article is pointing to (ie reporting) results of a poll of science faculty on a notable topic.  I see nothing unencyclopedic about this, it seems relevant.  The article fails on many other levels, but seems like something that ought (at best) to be mentioned in an article reporting upon a notable debate on the topic of science education in the USA. I can understand why POV issues leap to the fore on this topic, but judging from the tone of Carlton's comments the votes to delete seem as POV driven as the article is accused of being. Pete.Hurd 19:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. As it happens, I am strongly opposed to "creationism" and/or "intelligent design" being taught in public (or publicly supported) schools.  However, I do not think that opinion polls are encyclopedic unless they are used in the context of a broader article as evidence of formation and/or shifting of public attitudes on the subject in question.  Since voting in here, I have become aware that other editors think that opinion polls are encycloprdic in and of themselves. Therefor, I am withdrawing my delete vote due to uncertainty about what is going on in here. - Dalbury 19:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If I thought this was simply an opinion poll of the general public, then I would be far more disposed towards thinking it is unencyclopedic. The article presents this as a survey of scientists (perhaps of faculty members at Case Western) which says something different than a simple opinion poll.  I'm pretty emphatically opposed to teaching so-called "intelligent design", as well.  From what I can glean from this article, I think the report supports my POV.  That the article doesn't says enough for me to tell whether this is true makes me uncomfortable about POV accusations.  Like I said, I think the article is not acceptable on other grounds, but I think it could be fixed/merged.  Pete.Hurd 21:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.