Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operational sex ratio

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The result was Keep (non-admin closure), withdrawn as I'm sick of being abused. Collectonian (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operational sex ratio

Fails WP:N and has been orphaned for over a month. Seems to be a name for just one scientists concept or theory rather than a wide reaching topic. Collectonian (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep very, very, far from being "just one scientists concept or theory" but is in fact a technical term very much in use in several subdisciplines within biology. Every undergraduate student in ecology or evolution ought to be able to recite the definition. Entering "Operational sex ratio" into Web of science returns 32 pages of hits. Entering the phrase, in quotes, into google scholar [1] might have been worthwhile prior to nominating for deletion... Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, wikipedia needs an article on Sex ratio theory, there's a wee bit at Sex_ratio#Sex_ratio_theory, and some more in Unbeatable strategy, W.D._Hamilton#Extraordinary_sex_ratios, but I would think a redirect of this term to such a page (if one were to exist, but it doesn't) would be appropriate. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Google Scholar results alone should dispel any notion this is a fringe term. --Dhartung | Talk 22:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the nominator has (re)placed a prod tags on Tim Clutton-Brock 10 times today, then placed (and removed) a "notability" template. The Tim Clutton-Brock article's creator has been blocked for disruption in removing the tags, which seems very harsh considering the unreasonableness of a prod tag on the bio of an FRS. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral with a comment, despite the deviation from the current discourse. a clarification: it was a speedy tag repeatedly removed, and as the admin who ultimately removed it, considering the combativeness of the editor involved in repeatedly removing the tag despite warnings and explanations, the block is quite appropriate. (And shorter than I'd have levied, but that's neither here nor there.) Collectonian saw no notability in the article, and I can understand that viewpoint; opinions differ, which is why we tend to be guided by consensus-building. Since then, she has recognized the inherent notability of that subject, through the work of other editors, and has accepted it; chances are, if this discussion focuses on proof of notability instead of on the nominator, she would be happy to reconsider her position. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That is a very false and misleading statement. I placed a CSD on Tim Clutton-Brock, not a PROD. As such, the creator removing the tag violated policy, refused to stop removing it despite more than 5 warnings, and was blocked for that and being completely uncivil. An admin removed the CSD after the creator was blocked, and I tagged for notability until it was clarified that WP:PROF gives blanket notability to FRS. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. I find your bringing that up here extremely inappropriate, particularly when you are making very incorrect statements about it. It is beyond uncalled for and has nothing to do with this at all. Collectonian (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously. The notion that it's just one scientist is nonsense. The exact phrase gets 2,540 on google scholar, occurring mostly in titles of papers, by many many different authors. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is certainly a term I've heard from evolutionary biologists, without even mentioning Clutton-Brock. -- Mithent (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added several references that explicitly discuss the term. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the references in the article and hits on Google Scholar suggest this topic is notable. --Pixelface (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's an idea: try doing some research before you imply that it "seems to be a name for just one scientist's concept or theory rather than a wide-reaching topic." Since you're not a scientist, stick to making contributions to the Christianity pages. Otherwise, perhaps I might feel one day like pretending I know a lot about Christianity, and mark some articles for deletion.Vanheusden (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I even ask why you said anything about Christianity? I don't make contributions to Christianity-related pages, and making threats of retribution is not appropriate. As a side note, this comment is that users first and only contribution. Collectonian (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of contributions is irrelevant to my initial point. Please don't mark articles for deletion unless you've done your homework on the subject.Vanheusden (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. If the article doesn't make its notability clear and gives the impression it is a pet theory, has been tagged for multiple issues for over 3 months without being touched, has only one source and little context, then I will view it as lacking notability and nominate it for deletion. People don't want their articles nominated, they should do a better job starting them. Collectonian (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2008 (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.