Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative explanations of the "grandmother" cell

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative explanations of the "grandmother" cell[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a non-neutral essay arguing in favour of a personal opinion. Although it appears adequately sourced, when you look at individual paragraphs many of them start with sourced sentences and then finish with an unsourced sentence arguing in favour of a specific interpretation, one that doesn't seem to be in the cited papers themselves. Reyk _YO! 19:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Interstellarity (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say merge to Grandmother cell, but after reading all the way through, I must go for delete. This is a very strongly POV-flavoured synthesis production which seems to take a number of flying interpretive leaps off of more or less distant research. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like Elmidae, I was initially going to say merge, but now agree with the nominator - delete. However, can I suggest that the references that are used in this article be posted to Talk:Grandmother cell if the article is deleted, in case they may be of use in the future? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Alternative explanations" in title of an article is never a good sign, and the content of this article doesn't inspire any more confidence. Lifted from POVFORK: However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as complete nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content of this article is full of synthesis with references almost being a WP:COATRACK for the unjustified conclusions drawn. I think it would be OK to copy/merge just the references per DannyS712, but the prose is not salvageable. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just piling on at this point, but I couldn't find anything in my read through either that would be worth even merging, and it does indeed look like a WP:COATRACK attempt. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2019 (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.