Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sociobiological analysis of rape

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 Delete. Ral315 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sociobiological analysis of rape

See also Violence and evolutionary psychology (AfD discussion) and How to predict US vetoes (AfD discussion).

Another essay, apparently written by the same person. WP:NOT a soapbox. Wcquidditch | Talk 11:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Wcquidditch | Talk 11:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. The 'analysis' spoken of is too thin to withstand close scrutiny. Eddie.willers 12:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research / soapbox. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. I have corrected the link to the identical article on everything2. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment (but no vote) - there have been some genuine controversies over sociobiological theories of rape. This is not the article to cover that, but one may be appropriate. BD2412 T 02:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There is one, sociobiological theories of rape. The author added a link to their new article (as an improper header link) directly above an existing link to the existing article, meaning it was a knowing POV fork. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, then - thanks for pointing out the existing article on the topic! BD2412 T 03:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. If someone wants to write a new, properly-sourced article on this topic, they can re-create it under this title without prejudice, but this isn't a useful start to such an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nice essay, good references. Poor encyclopedia value Prashanthns 17:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, also almost certainly a knowing POV fork of Sociobiological theories of rape. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research and as likely POV fork of existing article, per Antaeus Feldspar. The user may of course contribute to sociobiological theories of rape, but should be careful to understand and follow Wikipedia policies with regard to neutrality, verifiability, and citing sources, which means that it is not sufficient to cite sources to buttress a presentation of one's own opinion; opinions mentioned in an article must be the opinions of reliable, authoritative sources and citations must be provided. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR. Edwardian 07:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: original research. Graham/pianoman87 talk 04:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR Melchoir 02:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR on a soapbox. Jasmol 21:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essays violate NOR. HGB
• Mirv has pointed out that this is a straight copy of this Everything2 article by its author. Uncle G 01:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment; ironically, the link to the everything2 article has always been in this article, as Reference n. 5 with the misleading title "HerMan..."! Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 01:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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.