Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Canopy Evolution

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Canopy Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable evolutionary hypotheses that humans evolved on trees. Just 101 Google hits for "human canopy evolution", most of which are either Wikipedia mirrors or "isn't this interesting"-type references on science websites. szyslak 04:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral so far The author of this article is apparently the author of the theory. The fact that some science websites found it interesting might make it worthy of inclusion, but we have to tread carefully when someone puts in their own published work. Anyway, if you want to see the cited reference, it's here (7 page long pdf). I'll try to revisit this when I'm less tired. CitiCat ^♫ 05:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete. The wikipedia article is clearly not neutral, and is clearly promoting the theory. It may be a theory that passes inclusion, but not an article by the theory's author that says things like "a powerful new synthesis of data", "Extensive analysis establishes. . .", etc. CitiCat ^♫ 05:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I got my crazy, outsider idea published in a peer-reviewed evolutionary journal. Let this guy submit his essay to peer review, and once it's accepted he can create a Wikipedia article on it. SolidPlaid 06:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete article makes no claim of notability. Fails WP:N. We require some demonstration that this article does not merely represent WP:Undue weight per "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia ... regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Vastly fails the (rejected) WP:SCIENCE, which for me represents the appropriate bar for inclusion. Pete.Hurd 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable - single relevant citation on Google Scholar (a citation of the Perry article in another paper), zero relevant hits on PubMed. Tim Vickers 17:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable enough for The Guardian "New theory rejects popular view of man's evolution" and New Scientist "Our upright walking started in the trees". KTo288 21:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two articles you cited are about the general idea that proto-humans began walking upright while living in trees. They have little to do with the specific theory outlined in this article. szyslak 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, not verified science as of yet. • Lawrence Cohen 01:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a propaganda piece. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The idea can be better covered in articles on human evolution. If the term acquires commoner usage, a re-direct can be set up. Bondegezou 16:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. As Szyslak points out above, most of the references now cited in the article actually refer to a different concept and do not use the term "human canopy evolution", so they do not establish notability for this article. Gandalf61 14:55, 21 September 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.