Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture clash pathologies

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 of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to violate WP:NOR and WP:V Mark K. Bilbo 05:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Why pray tell? Culture_clash_pathologies are a biological reality, already accepted in scientific circles, and a matter presented by H. G. Wells in his science fiction novel "War of the Worlds" over a century ago. Please see citations. A very puzzled Jigüe 11/29/05

• Strong Keep. This is a very valid and notable topic. This is certainly NOT original research. As for WP:V I see references scattered througout the article. I could not find a duplicate article with this info. I'm not sure if a Rename might not be in order, as I got no Google hits on "culture clash pathologies". But I don't know what else you would call it -- I'm not sure that there is a generally accepted name. HOWEVER, it needs major Cleanup as the tone is of a term paper, not an encylopedia entry. Herostratus

• • Comment WP:NOR because the author is proposing a concept and/or term that is apparently original with him or her. The historical events involved are significant (and very much so) but if the concept and/or term isn't in the literature (such asq, it's a topic Jared Diamond would takle) then we're violating "no original research." And I can't find a single reference for "culture clash pathologies" myself.

Mark K. Bilbo 13:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • If it's WP:NOR solely because of the name of the article, a Rename would be in order rather than a delete, I would think. I myself have an article, Battle of annihilation (I know, needs work) whose title is only weakly in the literature and is really only a description of the phenomena. If there is a better title, responders might propose one. (Mind you, agree the article body is a mess, but IMO that is better addressed by a call for cleanup or attention rather than a delete. Herostratus 14:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The topic seems worthy. However, a Google search for "Culture clash pathologies" gets no Google hits [1].

No Google book results either see [2] and nothing on Google scholar see [3]. This phrase is obviously a complete neologism and it would be original research to have an article of this name until it is verified by a reliable third party source. Delete.Capitalistroadster 08:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, per Capitalistroadster. OR includes 'concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication'. --Squiddy 09:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Rename to something more searchable (and without the damn underscores). Seems to be an attempt to give a name to something vaguely recognized from history, but without any context or sourcing behind it. Needs work. rodii

Addressed revisions suggested here and elsewhere, and changed title to the more google active "Cultural collisions and mutual lethal contact " Please go ahead and delete the original Culture_clash_pathologies El Jigüe 11-30-05

• Speedy delete since the author has requested it and there are no other significant editors of the article (I forget which criterion that is, but it's in there, right?). Probably not necessary to create a redirect since the neologistic nature of the title was the major objection to the present article. Were there any objections directly related to the content that would necessitate keeping the AfD open on the moved article? — Haeleth Talk 23:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well... yeah. "The neologistic nature of the title" is still an issue. With an encyclopedia, readers start with a known topic name and go looking for information on that topic. In this case, who is going to come to Wikipedia and search for "Cultural collisions and mutual lethal contact"? Rather than "contributing to an encyclopedia," this feels like "publishing an article". The question that we should be asking, given the basically worthy material, is what article it should be part of? I might suggest First contact (anthropology). (I'm not explaining this very well. Someone please help me. El Jigüe, no criticism of your work is intended. But the novelty of the name tends to make it look like original research rather than "information about X topic.") rodii 22:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Yes. Any discussion of the impact of the contact between the hemispheres would have to be in a recognized category just to be found. Personally, I still feel the author is attempting his own, personal synthesis of the material. Which would be fine in, say, an anthropology journal but does it belong here? Also, the hypothesis that syphilis came from this continent and was carried to Europe is still highly speculative. I think the jury is still out (and that's an opinion from reading the literature, until recently, I was working on a degree in anthropology). Seems to me the author should consider contributing to existing categories and articles rather than attempting something original. Mark K. Bilbo 22:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As another user has pointed out, the creator of this article writes term papers, not encyclopedia entries. He also creates duplicate articles with identical content under multiple titles (for instance, this one was duplicated as the now-speedily-deleted Cultural collisions and mutual lethal contact), and spams them with internal links from other articles (for example he added a link to a Fidel Castro Cuban espionage page from American Civil War spies). He rejects Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and does not accept that his contributions are released under the GFDL, and thus engages in endless edit wars to defend "his" articles. See further discussion: [4] and [5]. -- Curps 02:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete persistent POV original research that are aptly described by Curps as term-papers rather than encyclopedic articles. The internal link 'spamming' is also a good sign that the article cannot stand on its own two feet, so to speak. -Splash^talk 19:19, 4 December 2005 (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.