Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution poll


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete 4/15 +/- (due to how interpretation of certain uncertain votes) Jtkiefer  T - 00:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Evolution poll
Article has escaped under the radar screen. It is basically a creationist POV-pushing endeavor. Any worthwhile content can be merged to the creationism article or the creation-evolution controversy article. This article, however, is misleadingly named (it is not a poll on evolution but rather a poll about the creation-evolution controversy) and the article has very little worth salvaging in terms of content since this basically is original research or, where it isn't, can be appropriately addressed on other pages. Joshuaschroeder 01:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

....delete, delete, delete, or at least teach a few rednecks to read a damn genome
 * This doesn't push a POV but is an essay advising caution with opinion polls. Sources are missing, and the title is awkward. The content could go into creation-evolution controversy. Pilatus 01:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is the source: . How could you miss it? It was right there, in the middle of the article. Should we add it to the end, also? Uncle Ed 23:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources make this an easy delete vote.  I agree with the nominator, there's nothing in the article worth salvaging. Quale 01:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * AHhhhhhhhhhhh! - I know my vote won't count and all, but seriously, my biochem text book is spinning in its grave, or at least it will be once they finally bring back the book burnings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.70 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 29 September 2005
 * Delete CalJW 02:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per 205.188.117.70. If not, then redirect to creation-evolution controversy. --Apyule 02:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, there's nothing in this essay that Wikipedia is better for having. Also, polls are evil. Lord Bob 03:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What is the point of this? If it's about the statisical problems of polls, then it should be at Poll or whatever. If it's simply to show the percentages of people who ascribe to either creationism or evolution, then it should ne incorporated into creation-evolution controversy. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. This article purports to be about ... what? Some particular opinion polls? The general idea of polling the public about evolution? There doesn't actually seem to be a topic here. Opinion polls are not how science is conducted; they might be useful as an indicator of the penetration of scientific ideas in the populace, but that would seem to need support from ... somewhere? There's an idea here, but it's so muddled that I'm having real difficulty disagreeing with the consensus to delete .... --FOo 04:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This would be a cleanup of the kind "throw away everything and write a new article". My opinion is that in those cases nothing is lost by deletion. - Andre Engels 11:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to call it a Delete but the title would make a good redirect to one of the other better pre-existing articles. DreamGuy 06:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What is this supposed to be? Some sort of scientific FUD generator? --Calton | Talk 07:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete without redirect or merge. Who would search for this?  And when they got there, why would they want to find personal opinion and original research based on a 2001 poll? Vizjim 09:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Personal essay by someone who does not realise that science is not a popularity contest. Average Earthman 09:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic in topic, essay, original research... - Andre Engels 11:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as a personal essay. &mdash; J I P | Talk 15:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vsmith 15:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep This is one of the oldest articles at Wikipedia (3 years, 10 months). It was originally created to settle a dispute over how many people "believe in evolution" - which turns out to depend of various definitions of biological evolution.
 * When "evolution" is defined in naturalistic terms about 1 American in 8 supports it. When the definition of "evolution" is expanded to include gradual emergence of species guided by an intelligent force (like God) then additonal 3/8 of Americans may be said to "support evolution".
 * Sources have been in this article (I know: I put them in there at least twice over the years). If sources were deleted for some reason, then simply put them back.
 * There is no reason to delete this article, other than to suppress information about the controversy, dispute and/or debate between advocates about their positions on evolution.
 * It's especially disturbing that when I linked to this article, another contributer immediately said that he would try to get it deleted. This smacks of censorship - which is sneaky and low down way to win a debate! Uncle Ed 17:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, you created this article, according to the edit history, and by article, I mean one paragraph copy/paste, you then proved it 'valid' by linking to a washington times article, which apparently is where you copy/pasted it from.. using a tabloid as an encylopedic source is a rediculous standard, not to mention straight out copy/pasting?..--64.12.117.11 11:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator, who summed it up best. MCB 17:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Uninformative, not encyclopaedic Ex0pos 21:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm no evolutionist but get rid of this lest Wikipedia becomes a repository on poll results for every concievable controversy Paul 00:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am a thorough-going evolutionist, but if this is the only Wp article treating the well-known phenomenon of the apparent popularity of creationism in the US, then it should definitely stay and be improved upon. Unless I'm missing something &mdash; like that this article repeats information elsewhere in Wp, then I agree with Ed &mdash; this smacks of censorship. --goethean &#2384; 14:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge whatever content is useful. I don't see that a redirect is useful under this title.  The proper places for this info were mentioned in the nomination: we already have creationism and creation-evolution controversy.  There is no reason to mention a couple specific polls in their own article, outside the larger context.  Friday (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Evolution is a dirty conspiracy, it's ten times worse then that whole 'round earth' bit, 5 times as insideous as that 'global warming' crap, and just as absurd as that whole 'gravity' thing, can you believe the leftist commie pinkos are actually allowed to teach this stuff to our children?? next thing you know they'll be handing out abortions like they're soada pop--172.208.123.70 14:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Information is sourced, clearly not original research. It is presented in a NPOV fashion.  Johntex\talk 17:07, 4 October 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.