Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zenosaga/Neanderthal theory

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Daniel Bryant 02:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zenosaga/Neanderthal theory

Not encyclopedic. Another version of a thrice-deleted article (see here, here, & here), recreated in October and unedited since December -- except for the addition of a PROD tag and its removal by User:Alex Bakharev, who seems unaware that WP is not a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute or permanent home for not-ready-for-primetime articles. Calton | Talk 00:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. This article is a free advertisement, webhost for a completely bogus theory that has been pushed on Wikipedia for far too long. It has no research or scientific basis whatsoever, and is patently and outrageously offensive to people with Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it would violate WP:OR if it was in mainspace, but OR does not categorically apply to userspace. This is a new theory that might potentially be accepted by scientific community. And there are lots of non-scientific pop culture reference as indicated on the page, not worth an article but ok on userspace. Wooyi 00:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you explain any reasoning that supports the notion that it "might potentially be accepted by scientific commmunity"? There is none, btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Go look at the references, they are not just frivolous sites. Wooyi 00:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I've been looking at the references for a year, and I know the research quite well. Go *read* the references; there isn't a single scintilla of evidence or scientific backing for this theory, which has been pushed on Wiki and throughout the internet by a Wikipedian on various personal and self-published sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Let's see this one, it's a pretty comprehensive and trustworthy article about autism and the author lists this "Neanderthal theory" as "one of the competing theories", which means it is not frivolous. Wooyi 01:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
          • If that's your strongest evidence, my point is proven. The site gives no credibility to the theory, and is a glorified advertising personal website put up (it claims) by two doctors. It doesn't meet the requirments for a reliable source, and certainly doesn't meet the requirements for medical sources on Wiki acccording to WP:MEDMOS. Please find a serious medical source that gives any credibility to this theory. Anywhere. PubMed, eMed, NIH, or any source that rises to the level expected of reliable sources on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC) By the way, the first hint that you won't find any credible evidence comes from the lead of the article itself, which accurately says: " it has not yet been published in any scientific journals, ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
          • "Advertisement site"? Not so to me. It's a medical enclyclopedia, I can say scholarly, and it cites it as one of the competing theories regarding to autism. If it's only a bogus joke or hoax why would it be so "competing"? Wooyi 01:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Encyclopedia- that's a stretch. By the way, did you notice the link "help us edit this article"? I wonder who submitted the neanderthal info to them :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• ...it would violate WP:OR if it was in mainspace, but OR does not categorically apply to userspace Irrelevant, since that's not an issue: use of userspace as a permanent webhost for non-encyclopedic content -- in fact, explicitly rejected as such three times -- is the actual issue actually stated. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Many popular theories don't have scientific backing yet, but still notable, as I said before, a medical enclyclopedia listed as one of "competing theories" regarding to autism. Wooyi 01:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a medical encyclopedia; it's a personal website with a good deal of advertising, which accepts content additions from others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete I would say keep if it looked like an articles could possibly be written from the material, but it does not seem possible. If someone ever publishes scientific articles supporting or even discussing the theory, then a new article would be based on that. DGG 01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material, user namespace or not. --woggly 14:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per woggly. ju66l3r 10:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong don't speedy. I have heard of this, and I am not in a place to hear about lots of fringe medical theories. That's not a reason to keep it, but let's at least wait to see if someone can produce better sources. -Amarkov moo! 04:29, 16 March 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.