Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From where to what language evolution theory

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. KTC (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From where to what language evolution theory[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a recent fringe theory that is in no way notable and was written by the creator of the seemingly self-published theory himself (see COIN discussion). It is not sourceable in any way except for the single primary source that is the paper itself. It was originally being given undue weight on the Origin of language article; the creator then moved it here after it was contested. LjL (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to apologize ahead if I accidentally violated any of your guidelines. However, I do want to state that this model is based on a peer reviewed paper, so I disagree with categorizing it as a fringe theory. I believe this topic is important and wish your will agree with me and not delete the page. PolivaOren (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "peer reviewed" doesn't make it not fringe. Plus, it's published on a site that claims to be "an Open Science publishing platform offering immediate publication of posters, slides and articles with no editorial bias", which sounds to me like it means self-published and "immediate", so no guarantee of peer reviewing except after the fact. The site itself calls your essay an "opinion article", not a research paper or anything like that. The topic of the origin of language is certainly important, but in the grand (and encyclopedic) scheme of thing, your particular essay, quite frankly, isn't. LjL (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a new theory created by the article's author and published in a single paper. It may merit a sentence in the Origin of language article but it is both WP:UNDUE and WP:TOOSOON: in short, it is Not Notable, though of course it could become so one day. I'm not sure the "FRINGE" charge is correct; this is a mainstream peer-reviewed paper which presents a new theory, which may be right or wrong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons outlined by Chiswick Chap. Note that fringe science is not necessarily the work of crackpots: it can be legitimate science that is simply too fresh to be properly judged and described in an encyclopedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of all the reasons already outlined. I'm not in a position to assess the accuracy of the article's claims, but it isn't a notable topic. Andrew³²⁷ 12:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, and also as per WP:COI RailwayScientist (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are two problems: 1) This work is not peer-reviewed yet; the only reviewer has reservations. 2) The only source is the article itself. Only when scientific research or a scientific theory receives significant independent attention can it be considered suitable for a standalone article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for researchers to post lay summaries or mini-reviews of their own work. Fences&Windows 20:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of secondary sources describing this work. Note that the text was likely written by the author himself, and does not conform to Wikipedia standards (inline YouTube links, etc.) –Jérôme (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for most of the reasons given by others. Eeekster (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2015 (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.