Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangled bank hypothesis

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 Redirect to Evolution of sex per conflicting consensi: 1. the topic seems notable, 2. the article fails our policies, and there is no reason to believe this will change in the near future. Redirecting preserves the edit history, so it can be recreated if someone with the necessary expertise is willing to work on it. ~ trialsanderrors 03:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tangled bank hypothesis[edit]

The page has been listed as POV since May 2005. It has not changed much at all in that time and is still POV. I propose that the page be deleted as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. This would allow for a nice fresh start to be made if someone felt it was necessary. Localzuk^(talk) 15:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems important as per Google scholar. I made a stab at NPOV by cutting out the POV "really defeats..." bit. Leibniz 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After perusing the results of a Google Scholar search on "tangled bank" I concur with Leibniz. Stammer 18:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per Stammer and Leinbiz, but I agree with Localzuk as well that it needs to be worked upon. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS ^C_RS 808 am ET November 13 2006
Comment I do not mind if it is kept, so long as people start to do something with it. Being marked as POV for 18 months is not a good thing so any attention that it gets is a Good Thing (TM). Localzuk^(talk) 19:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original POV tag was based on this reasoning:

"This article has a strong feeling of being written from an anti-evolutionist viewpoint: Googling to try to find sources keeps on finding anti-evolutionist/creationist websites containing similar wording and quotes. -- The Anome 12:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)"

I don't see how that applies. My reading is a controversy about sexual or asexual reproduction, without creationist WP:BOLLOCKS. I suggest: speedy keep, take off POV tag, but expert attention needed. Leibniz 19:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is bollocks. It doesn't have a point. - Richardcavell 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Strong Merge into Evolution of sex. The phrase itself should redirect to that article, of course. WMMartin 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge into Evolution of sex, with whatever is more relevant moved into Asexual reproduction. There doesn't need to be a separate article about one hypothesis of why some species do it one way and some do it the other, when there are already two articles that cover those two ways - two articles that are perfect places to compare and contrast. [Interestingly, the first of those two articles has a bad wikilink for the hypothesis (second word is capitalized) and the other has no mention at all of this hypothesis.] John Broughton | Talk 18:05, 17 November 2006 (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.