Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biological imperative

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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biological imperative[edit]

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

Besides having no sources and external links which are all dead or seemingly unrelated to the topic, this appears to be a case of original research – while the term “biological imperative” appears to be a real one used in a wide variety of contexts, there doesn’t seem to be a verifiable list of any specific things defined as biological imperatives per se. While the phrase should (and does) have an entry on the wiktionary, that seems entirely sufficient given the topics ambiguity when it comes to specifics. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - I'll wait until there is more discussion before I vote. It drives me nuts when articles are created and then no attempt to source the thing is made. However, I think this could be a very good article if it is written right. Hopefully someone will see the AFD and do a little work on it. Bali88 (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC) I think the right move is to delete it. Unsourced. No one seems interested in working on it. I think it could be a good article if someone gave it some attention, but I think it could just be recreated in that case. Bali88 (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure if its worth noting, but this article has existed in one form or another since 2005, when it appeared to focus on "genetic imperative". I've tried a few times over the last couple years to find some worthy citations before finally giving up and conceding to myself this is probably best option. I do hope you're right though. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tricky one. From what I can tell there's not an agreed upon definition of "biological imperative" that clearly distinguishes it from basic need. I think the best case for keeping will frame it as a term used by particular notable researchers, in a certain theoretical context, or something more discipline-specific. As a general concept it seems like a less used term for ideas we already have articles for. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not much to be said for this article. There is not much to be said of it, that Buddy Lee has not said already. But there is the subject of the scientific consensus on this topic, or rather lack of it. It is sad to me that genetics has allowed this discussion to go unaddressed, so that a thousand scientists can opine in scholarly articles that a particular thing is a biological imperative, while ten of those scientists selected randomly could not agree on a list of ten biological imperatives, much less this list. There is a specific WP guideline that covers the premature creation of science articles, but I cannot find it, unfortunately. Basically, the coverage of this term in Scholar amounts to trivial coverage: it is used in passing, in discussions about other topics. For example, two of the articles where it is used as a title, both put question marks at the end of the title: "Physical illness: Social construction or biological imperative?" and "Aggression: A Biological Imperative?". Scientists cannot even seriously, before the scrutiny of their peers, put forth the combination of the term and a hypothetical example. Even worse, the whole subject reminds me of the History Channel-level stabs at explaining evolution, where evolution is described as ab "arms race" and species are said to "prefer" a particular genetic variation. This is putting the emphasis on success, as though it were chosen by the species, and those species who do not choose it, well, they are just sorry losers. The extinction of species can be influenced by cataclysmic factors, and the success, by dumb luck (birds on islands that have no snake predators, for example, with their extravagant plumage and mating dances that serve only an aesthetic purpose). Anarchangel (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broaden - I came across this article while researching the "breed imperatives" of Jack Russell Terriers (i.e., behaviors they will exhibit no matter how well trained). I suggest that the page be kept; In time, I believe its scope may change. Joad Marshal (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Within the realisation that my biological knowledge doesn't stretch far beyond the song, "head, shoulders, knees and toes" I'd tend to side with the person that knew the subject the best. Gregkaye (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 23 June 2014 (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.