Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PFAW poll on creationism 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallup poll on creationism and evolution Pilatus 18:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much wrong with this page. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox or repository of survey data. The results themselves are suitable in the article on creationism to give an idea how much it is supported in the US. However, we don't need n articles that state that it has a following in certain countries. Pilatus 18:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Creation-evolution controversy just like Gallup poll on creationism and evolution. There's discussion on Category talk:Evolution polls about why single-poll articles are undesirable. Friday (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect with cleanup. Fails to give a date for the poll, syntax is very hard to follow. Durova 18:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redirect would be useless as nobody will look up the article under this name. Andrew Levine 18:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. --ScienceApologist 18:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect Another Ed Poor mess for others to clean up. FeloniousMonk 18:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I wish he would stop his POV mess. -^demon 20:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems all these absurd spin-off POV forks are rather disrupting. - Vsmith 20:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete standing alone, not very useful without date and real information about poll (questions? sample size? Error?) In context of POV warrior forking, Strong Delete CarbonCopy 21:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or move to user space - See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallup poll on creationism and evolution - move both to your user space, merge and add to it until it convinces people. I don't know that it would hurt to have an article on polls and polling data in America. And you have to start somewhere; why not with these two polls? WAS 4.250 22:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge information into a central article about polling of the creation/evolution debate. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've lost track of how many of Ed Poor's evolution articles have been deleted in the past couple weeks. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with RoyBoy. A general article on creation/evolution polling in America would be okay. -Parallel or Together ? 02:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A data dump. (Wikipedia is not a collection of raw data.) Worse, a POV-selective data dump. Cherry-picked data is actively misleading. And an article on a poll suggests that the poll is particularly meaningful or pertinent. This poll has no particular meaning with regard to fact as opposed to belief. - Nunh-huh 02:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are hundreds of thousands of poll data out there and none of them deserves its own article. Find an external link that has this data and just put that into the "External Links" section of whatever page you choose to reference it from. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 08:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the creationism-evolutionism controversy article Cynical 12:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nunh-huh. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — there are very few polls that are in any way significant. More agitprop from the creationist agenda. — RJH 17:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Indeed a data dump, not an encyclopedic article. -- Ec5618 21:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POINT. Stifle 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per so many reasons I cannot even count. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.