Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biologism

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 Redirect to Biological determinism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:51Z

[edit] Biologism

Biologism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A basically incoherent article. Doesn't even define the article's subject. It has something to do with evolution and homosexuality and testosterone. Or something. De-proded by author without explanation. eaolson 03:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per Peter G Werner, below. Thanks for finding that. eaolson 14:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete: nn neologism. -- feb^talk 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. Under what speedy delete criteria? eaolson 03:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • A1 or G1. Honestly, makes next to no sense. Kind of like those "arugment maker" sites, you put in the name of something you don't like, and it comes up with a bunch of perfectly fine english to describe what's so awful about it, but if you actually read it it doesn't actually have content -- feb^talk 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Article appears to be using an existing word as a neologism for something else. According to the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia, Helicon Publishing LTD 2007, biologism is "biological theory; use of biological terms." This is a very general idea, and appears to have nothing to do with the content of the Wikipedia entry of that name. In addition, the sentence "Biologism will become the underlying principle of the future societies" is probably the worst violation of WP:CRYSTAL I've yet seen. ◄Zahakiel► 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect - to the proper term, as below, unless it is properly sourced in short order. But in either case, the content of the current article should still be removed (i.e., do not merge with anything) per what I said above. The existing content is not salvagable. ◄Zahakiel► 16:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Biological determinism, which this term is clearly a neologistic synonym of. I'd recommend a merge, but the writing in "Biologism" is so unclear, that I don't think it can be salvaged. A google search of "biologism -wikipedia" yields 55600 hits, most having something to do with biological determinism, so clearly the word is a semi-established synonym. Peter G Werner 07:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not neologistic. A quick search turns up books discussing biologism at length that go back several decades. It is the "attempt to reduce social science to biology" in the words of ISBN 9027719136, published in 1985, and "biological reductionism" according to ISBN 0802088600. ISBN 0887068219, published in 1988, discusses the "new biologism" that arose in the 1940s. ISBN 0873955188, published in 1981, talks about the biologism of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Oswald Spengler. There are books from 1938 discussing biologism in British philosophy, and books from 1946 discussing the attraction of biologism for George Bernard Shaw. Uncle G 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G. Copy Uncle G's comments to article & put it on the clean-up list. It's marginal & obscure, but a worthy topic. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Peter G Werner. » K i G O E | talk 05:30, 19 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.