Content deleted Content added
→Neo-Darwinism: Cogent case for WP:OR |
FeloniousMonk (talk | contribs) →Neo-Darwinism: delete |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
*'''Delete''' Original research, POV fork. [[User:Sefringle|<span style="color:#CC7722 ">Sef</span><span style= "color: black;">rin</span><span style="color:#808000;">gle</span>]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Sefringle|<span style="color:#4169E1">Talk</span>]]</small></sup> 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' Original research, POV fork. [[User:Sefringle|<span style="color:#CC7722 ">Sef</span><span style= "color: black;">rin</span><span style="color:#808000;">gle</span>]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Sefringle|<span style="color:#4169E1">Talk</span>]]</small></sup> 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Strong delete:''' this article is nothing more than a OR POV-fork. What few sources it does cite mostly range from questionable to grossly non-[[WP:RS]]. [[User:Hrafn|Hrafn<s>42</s>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub> 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Strong delete:''' this article is nothing more than a OR POV-fork. What few sources it does cite mostly range from questionable to grossly non-[[WP:RS]]. [[User:Hrafn|Hrafn<s>42</s>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub> 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' Clearly a one-sided POV Fork. Author appears to have [[WP:OWN]] issues as well [[WP:NPOV]] problems. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:47, 19 September 2007
Neo-Darwinism
AfDs for this article:
- Neo-Darwinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Creationist POV fork of modern evolutionary synthesis. Deleted once and redirected to modern evolutionary synthesis for 3.5 years, recreated today by an editor refusing to recognize WP:NPOV, particularly its WP:UNDUE clause. Odd nature 20:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete/restore redirect There are also serious WP:OR issues with the article as it currently stands. JoshuaZ 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. This article is better covered elsewhere. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I am not convinced we need two articles that are so similar.--Filll 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep this is a new page, not a restoration of the old one, which I have put a great deal of work into. There is nothing in the least bit aggressive in my approach, which has been to explain what I am doing and why in advance at all times and at great length. Sadly, certain editors persist in labelling me as a creationist, despite my insistance that I am anything but that. The alteration of the original page to a redirect was done without notification or flagging on the page, and was not in line with accepted reasons for creating a re-direct. Quite simply, neo-Darwinism is a term with a long history of use, and much current use, both by leading evolutionists and by opponents to evolutionary theory. It is not another term for Modern evolutionary synthesis but differs in very important respects, as I have fully explained on both talk pages. It therefore does not meet any of the criteria for becoming a redirect. I have some support for this view, and given time I expect more, and I am quite prepared to seek consensus, but I believe the proper place for that in at neo-Darwinism and not Modern synthesis. I reject suggestions that the term is somehow "obnoxious" (as one editor puts it) or associated with Creationism. It is not. It's a perfectly legitimate term. In any case, turning it into a redirect is not a valid way to challenge the content of any page. This is most certainly not a 'POV fork'. It does not present an alternative view of anything, in fact I am keen to separate out the term to make the article Modern synthesis stronger, as at the moment the latter is self-contradictory as explained in the talk. No cogent case has been made for OR, or POV, or UDUE, despite requests. There is no OR, and the cites are primary in that they are given as evidence of useage, not in support of useage, see my explanation in talk. Please note that attempts are being discussed to cover up abusive comments made by the proposer at Ornis talk --Memestream 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete POV fork and OR. Didn't we go through this before? •Jim62sch• 21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, what cited material there is might make a reasonable section in History of evolutionary thought, since this material is primarily a discussion of how a term has been used through the history of evolutionary biology. However, better sources are needed that discuss the usage of the term directly. Most of these citations are not to reliable sources - primarily web encyclopedias, a creationist website and personal webpages. Tim Vickers 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- NOTE - Discussion of the comment in the nomination about an editor being an "aggressive creationist POV warrior" moved to the talk page. Tim Vickers 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Looking at what links to the article might be insightful for some people. Note also how the term is used in those articles. There is no doubt that the term is used by creationists, but note that words like queer and even atheist have a history of being used pejoratively. I would strongly argue against any 'speedy action. 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhocking (talk • contribs)
- Delete - Merge relevant content into History of evolutionary thought per Tim Vickers.--Danaman5 21:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete & re-redirect, transfer any salvageable, reliably sourced, material to History of evolutionary thought, per Tim Vickers. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete basically nothing worth salvaging from this POV fork. Creator understands neither NPOV, NOR or RS. ornis (t) 22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The Modern Synthesis covers it. Neo-Darwinism is a perfectly good term, but the author here is confused for some reason. Neo-Darwinism is the combination of Darwin's Natural Selection with Mendel's genetic mechanism. The combination of the two created a clear understanding of how selection functioned across generations - which even Darwin puzzled over. The creator is seeing a problem where there is none. MarkBul 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, this term does have a historical meaning that is distinct from the modern synthesis (see PMID 15241603). Although this present article fails entirely to define or discuss this adequately, the term can be discussed in a section in the History of evolutionary thought and this title redirected to that article. Tim Vickers 00:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- A single source is too small a sample to establish notability of the viewpoint. Odd nature 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- See also DOI: 10.1078/1431-7613-00004 Tim Vickers 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I notice however, that his historical usage is already explained in the Modern evolutionary synthesis article. I've added a reference to this. No need for a new section in the "History of evolutionary thought" article, the redirect to modern synthesis would be fine. Tim Vickers 00:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- See also DOI: 10.1078/1431-7613-00004 Tim Vickers 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- A single source is too small a sample to establish notability of the viewpoint. Odd nature 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Get this OR and POV creationistcruft out of here. DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Original research, POV fork. SefringleTalk 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete: this article is nothing more than a OR POV-fork. What few sources it does cite mostly range from questionable to grossly non-WP:RS. Hrafn
42TalkStalk 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC) - Delete Clearly a one-sided POV Fork. Author appears to have WP:OWN issues as well WP:NPOV problems. FeloniousMonk 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)