Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linnaean Lawn

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linnaean Lawn

Linnaean Lawn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Now moved to Fixity of the Species

Tiny, non-notable theory that could never get beyond stub status. At best, usable in a history of science article. No cites, no verifiability, and not a term that Linnaeus, living before Darwin's evolutionary trees, would use. Even at the most forgiving, it's just a dictionary definition, and I can't see how it could expand from there Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Textbook case. Might want to consider speedying it tbh. --Davril2020 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The term turns up only a smattering of google hits, mainly to Kurt Wise and Walter Remine. The term wasn't used by Linnaeus and isn't used by serious scholars discussing what Linaeaus's views. JoshuaZ 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - it's too trivial an idea to warrant its own article. Guettarda 23:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Move "fixity of the species" Pbarnes 08:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Still has the problems of triviality, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, give me some time and I will see what I can do. Pbarnes 08:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If anything, the revisions made it ridiculously POV: "Many well-known scientist have accepted this view"?! Yes, perhaps before Darwin. And "Although evolution, the current accepted theory for specie diversity, has been mentioned by a number of philosophers and scientist, the majority of the world believed all the species remained fixed in there present anatomical state." - That's POV-pushing in the extreme. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If Darwin and Linnaeus are not what you would consider "well-known scientist", then I don't know what to tell you. I added some wording so it doesn't sound so much like it was a legitimate scientific theory but more of a presupposition. Is there enough there to remove the deletion header? It's called something common and has enough information to not be considered simple a definition. All the reasons for this deletion proposal are now gone so I see no need for it to be present. Pbarnes 01:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - That's not actually how this process works. Once the article has been nom'd for deletion, we are only here to discuss the issues. The actual decision to "Keep" or "Delete" will be made by the closing admin, not by the editors who participated. An AfD is actually a formal process, not an informal discussion like talkpages. Doc Tropics 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or move to Carolus Linnaeus if it's verifiable. SkierRMH,08:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources or refs, insignificant ghits (only 6 relevant); this is a dicdef, not an article. Doc Tropics 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, they have history in your dictionary...is that a new thing?!?!? Further more there would be references if there were references on other articles. If you have such a huge beef with it on this article why don't you go to other articles like Charles Darwin's views on religion where there are only 2 sources for a rather large article compared to this one. Pbarnes 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's rarely useful to point out the shortcomings of other articles instead of defending the one you think should be kept. If you consider Charles Darwin's views on religion to be unencyclopedic, and you are prepared to make a valid case for it, then by all means, nom it for AfD. Doc Tropics 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, you are the one who feels my article is unencyclopedic and I contend that you should feel the other articles as unencyclopedic as well. The fact that you don't tells me you are biased against this article. Remember, I'm not the one wanting sources for every single statement...that would be YOU. Pbarnes 02:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth. I haven't commented on any other articles, only this one. As for your assertion: "...I contend that you should feel...", I can only suggest that it's not actually your place to dictate what my opinions are or what my 'feelings' should be. It would appear that you are unable to defend this article, and instead are attacking everything and everyone in sight, trying to distract attention from the matter at hand. And the matter at hand is...this article merits deletion. Doc Tropics 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias - To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.

So where would a person fit if they nagged and nagged for one article to present proper citations while claiming this article is irrelevant in relation to real articles such as Charles Darwin's views on religion yet feels no need to ask for proper citations of those articles? Pbarnes 05:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! you brought up Charles Darwin's views on religion, not me. I've never commented on its content or relevance at all. Furthermore, if you actually read my comments, I've never called this article irrelevant, and I've never compared it to any other article at all. Why not respond to what people actually say, rather than what you wish they had said? Doc Tropics 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep under title Fixity of the Species. Seems to be a faily well used term historically, as a counter point to Darwinism. Seems to also be used in modern day creationism, and as we follow NPOV not SPOV its worth including. --Salix alba (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article makes an inaccurate stab at a subject more fully covered under history of creationism and has a title which does not appear to be in use anywhere. .. dave souza, talk 00:07, 10 December 2006 (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.