Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ed Poor/Evolution poll

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus/default keep. Xoloz 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ed Poor/Evolution poll

Recreation of the oh so infamous Evolution poll, and here as well, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution poll, also pretty sure this won't be the first time it's been deleted from userspace either--205.188.116.130 14:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems neutral and nice enough to keep to me. Ian13/talk 16:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems appropriate for userspace Trödel 14:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I like having it around, so that when people ask me on the talk pages (like talk:Intelligent design) where I get the 45% figure, I can just give them a internal wiki link. --Uncle Ed 15:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You should be referring them to the source, [1], not to your interpretation of the source. - Nunh-huh 19:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In what way is User:Ed Poor/Evolution poll an "interpretation" and why would that be wrong? I thought I was just summarizing the results in accordance with NPOV. If I've accidentally injected bias into this summary, please point it out - or better yet, correct it. --Uncle Ed 14:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Anytime you "distill" information you distort it. It's not clear why you'd want to maintain a biased tertiary source rather than refer people to a secondary source. - Nunh-huh 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Interesting nugget here. Stephen B Streater 19:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We're not here to host "Poll results Ed Poor likes", and it's inappropriate to host "articles" that have been deleted from the Wikipedia when they're recreated in user space. Besides, it's grossly unfair to Americans to host a poll demonstrating their stupidity! It would be nice if these sorts of "end-runs" around consensus would stop. - Nunh-huh 19:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a poll result I like. I'm shocked that 45% of Americans reject the fossil record simply because it goes against their religious beliefs (Creationism). But on at least two occasions, article contributors on talk pages have asked me for the source of the Gallup Poll, so I suppose it's not easy to find this info in article space. (Sudden thought: you don't suppose someone wants to delete the info because it's poll results they dislike, do you?) --Uncle Ed 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'd suppose that you'd want to snidely insinuate that for your own purposes, but that wouldn't make it true. And it doesn't belong in article space, which is why you can't find it there. I would think you'd be ashamed of your attempt to thrust your personal points of view into Wikipedia through the backdoor, and to subvert consensus about what's appropriate here, but that also is apparently not true. - Nunh-huh 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously dude - this is userspace and the content is pretty harmless - it is not even close to something like User:WHEELER/Classical definition of republic - userspace is for all kinds of stuff - including references, notes to yourself, etc - if someone links to it from the article space or includes categories, etc. they will be swiftly removed as a cross namespace link or violations of policy - I'm not sure of your interactions with Ed in the past, but the comments on this page are getting close to being harrassing. Trödel 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously dude, answering Ed Poor's snide comments here can hardly be harassment. And I've had no difficult interactions with Ed Poor. - Nunh-huh 18:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't find Ed's comment snide, despite being probably amongst the 45% (depends on the exact wording). Sorry about my false assumption on your motives. Trödel 18:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I did, and it's also particularly offensive in its disingenuousness: he wants to impute base motives to me by implication rather than speaking directly. It's a cowardly formulation calculated to be infuriating, and ought to be beneath him. - Nunh-huh 18:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Leave user space alone; this deletion is unnecessary. Maybe Ed will make this into an acceptable article sometime. Septentrionalis 19:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per both of Nunh-huh's comments above. This is an attempt to keep something in, when there's been a decision that it should be out. Maybe contributing a reference to creationism is in order. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs)
• Delete Per nom.QuizQuick 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unlikely to become a viable article and Wikipedia is not a free web host. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The content is referenced and encyclopedic. I'd like to see it merged into the appropriate article or articles rather than languishing in userspace though. I'm not sure that deletion is necessary, if Ed doesn't want to merge it, anyone else can... I'd think the argument for deletion would be stronger if the information was preserved elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 6 June 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.