Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homo orca-sapiens
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. - BanyanTree 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Homo orca-sapiens
Pure hoax. (Disputed prod.) -- RHaworth 08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Grutness...wha? 09:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mathmo Talk 11:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. MER-C 11:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I've heard of this idea, but that's all it was when I heard it: an idea that humans may have derived from water-breathers instead of tree-dwellers. They certainly didn't call them by this name, or by any name at all. Even if this isn't a hoax, it's got scads of unverifiable OR in it. --UsaSatsui 12:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it is theory, as the article suggests, surely that does not necessarily demand thatt it must be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.245.72 (talk • contribs) 07:43, February 3, 2007 (UTC)
- You are probably referring to Aquatic ape theory. This article is clearly NOT about it. (Okay, N Shar was faster.) - Mike Rosoft 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it is theory, as the article suggests, surely that does not necessarily demand thatt it must be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.245.72 (talk • contribs) 07:43, February 3, 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, we have articles on theories here. However, they still have the same requirements as any other article: Notability and Verifiability. Read those two links for how to establish those guidelines, but here's the Cliff Notes version: Find sources not connected to the original researcher that have written about the subject that establish it's notability, and cite them. You may want to read about the original research and conflict of interest guidelines too. And remember to sign your posts, please. --UsaSatsui 15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Unverified theory; I'd ordinarily suggest a merge with the Evolution article... but I doubt its data would survive there for very long. ◄Zahakiel► 16:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Hoax. So tagged. The only slightly legitimate related hypothesis is the aquatic ape hypothesis -- this one is pure nonsense. No sources provided. --N Shar 21:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete utter nonsense. --Fire Star 火星 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced orca-sized nonsense. SkierRMH 02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it is a work of fiction - orca sapiens is a creative writing exercise.GB 11:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. Possibly archive in BJAODN. - Mike Rosoft 02:33, 5 February 2007 (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.
