Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative natural history

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 was delete as original research. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative natural history

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The user Warfwar3 has been creating a string of articles, Future Human Evolution (speedy delete), Speculative biology (prod, user keeps creating redirects) and now Alternative natural history. These all seem be advertisement/presentation of original research in relation to the book Future Evolution, which was written by Peter Ward (offhand suspicious sounding relation to Warfwar3, but that may just be a coincidence). Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it should be given some time. Warfwar3 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ha! Warfwar3, Ward?
Keep Warfwar3 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote. Please explain why the article should be kept. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 72.70.112.106 interesting subject
- Maybe, but please read this link. "Interesting", in short, is not a criteria here on Wikipedia for a keeper. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. The concept does not seem discussed anywhere reputable - Peripitus (Talk) 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, (edit conflict), the article seems to have an interesting subject and an "expansion-able" title. It is unreferenced, has no meaningful links to other articles, and seems to violate WP:OR, but with some work I think it can be improved. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!, ???) 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my mind, merely delete. The sockpuppets won't help things though. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the topic is interesting, where in peer-reviewed journals does the term alternative natural history appear? And now there is a new page called speculative biology which redirects to alternative natural history. Where is this term defined in scientific journals? Warfwar3 just added speculative biology to Human evolution. I think this is growing out of control. Fred Hsu 02:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ors, original research Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR unless sources can be produced that show where the information came from. --Cyrus Andiron 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Weak delete I do not find citations for the exact term "alternative natural history" but I have seen a number of articles in such publications as Scientific American which look at projected evolutionary trends in animal form under various scenarios. An article examining projected evolutionary developments which have been published in such magazines as Scientific American, National Geographic, or even Popular Science would not be statements of well established scientific fact, but neither would they be crystal balling, since the extrapolations did not originate with the Wikipedia editor. Added: Looking at Future evolution and the other article cited in the present article, I feel the topic is adequately covered there and that this otherwise unsourced article adds too little to justify a separate article. I would argue to keep Future evolution. Edison 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's essentially a copy-paste of the other article in question (Speculative biology) and nothing more than a blurb of WP:OR. No reason to keep, compelling or otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkyan (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If Arkyan is correct (and others have also suggested) then this should be a CSD:G4 ~~speedy delete~~. Pete.Hurd 15:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is that it wasn't really deleted content, the author appears to have "contested" the prod on the original article by redirecting it here with essentially the same text and an example for padding. Not quite a G4 but constantly trying to dodge the issue by redirecting content elsewhere really isn't appropriate. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, it's not a CSD:G4, just plain old delete-worthy puffery. Pete.Hurd 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as we need to be open-minded to varities of viewpoints. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we cannot be open-minded to any variety of WP:OR. That's policy. New or controversial ideas are welcome so long as it's been attributed and sourced. This is not. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We should definitely keep the Future Evolution article since that is about a book that is notable and is presented as such. I raised this AfD because the other articles, Speculative biology and Alternative natural history seem to be aimed as presenting ideas from the book as real science (hence the marking as a biology topic/stub, linking to it from evolutionary biology and human evolution). This is also not a speedy delete because it is basically a contested prod off of Speculative biology. Future human evolution was speedily deleted, but the (limited) content on that article was different enough from these articles so this doesn't constitute G4. However, since the Spec. bio. and Alt. nat. hist. articles are substantially the same, they should probably have the same fate. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why not add a criticism section? 72.70.112.106
comment This could be tied into specualtion about lifeforms on other planets, which is also speculation based on natural laws.
Delete as Original Research --Leflyman^Talk 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There have been a number of articles and books on the subject, some serious projections, some seriously intended hypotheses to teach the principles of evolution, such as Future Evolution, and of course some popular at all sorts of levels. We need an article to tie them together, and this article would do as a start--or Speculative Biology; we definitely do not need the two. I am not sure which way the merge should go. DGG 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There is a lot of information about this scattered through many different articles. ITs time to bring it together.Bioblue93 — User's first edit. Sandstein 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - incoherent bollocks, would say OR if this could be called research. Sandstein 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and/or WP:Neologism. A search in Google Scholar shows that this term isn't really used in the meaning relevant to this article. Yevgeny Kats 04:03, 15 April 2007 (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.