Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary relay
- 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. Secret account 02:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evolutionary relay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
I'm not a biologist but it looks like this is just a neologism. P4k 06:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to be a biologist. You simply need to be an encyclopaedist. An encyclopaedist looks for secondary source material dealing with a subject. A mere 3 minutes' work with Google Books turns up several books — including ISBN 0226742695, ISBN 0192806688, and ISBN 0226728242 — which describe the idea of evolutionary relay in paleobiology and in their turns point to a paper by House that should also be relevant. Your very first step when bringing things to AFD should be to look for sources yourself. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Keep. Uncle G 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: G, if you refer to 'Ammonoid Extinction Events' by House et al. 1989, do observe that the usage there refers to the succession of different species in a particular ecological niche, rather than what is currently in the article. I find only a couple of papers using the term as in the article (maybe three). Michaelbusch 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... which can be addressed by ordinary editors doing ordinary editing, to bring the article into line with the sources, without need for an administrator to use any administrator tools at all. The House paper cited by others is dated 1985, by the way. Uncle G 02:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody here is an encyclopedist.P4k 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... which can be addressed by ordinary editors doing ordinary editing, to bring the article into line with the sources, without need for an administrator to use any administrator tools at all. The House paper cited by others is dated 1985, by the way. Uncle G 02:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: G, if you refer to 'Ammonoid Extinction Events' by House et al. 1989, do observe that the usage there refers to the succession of different species in a particular ecological niche, rather than what is currently in the article. I find only a couple of papers using the term as in the article (maybe three). Michaelbusch 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Largely a neologism, and seems to have interchangeable meaning with convergent evolution, which is by far more common. Maybe re-write per G's comment, but seems strained. Michaelbusch 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with Michaelbusch. It's rather obscure, and in technical writings seems often to be part of a pretty metaphor, "evolutionary relay race", rather than a specific technical phrase. I find quite a few ghits, but they are very largely from dictionary/encyclopedia sites. If it's in an evolutionary biology textbook, I'll change my mind. Tim Ross·talk 17:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Evolutionary Biology. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:40, 9 December 2007 (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.