Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. For one thing, I'm getting a disconnenct between a lot of the comments and the actual article; the comments address an earlier, much different version of the article which dealt with mythology and so forth. That part is now gone. It's well and good that articles are improved under the threat of extinction ("Knowing that one will be deleted in the morning", to paraphrase Mark Twain, "concentrates the mind wonderfully"). It is hard to achieve a consensus on a moving target, though. I'm not complaining; it's good for articles to be improved, and this one has. It now has references, for one thing.

There were a lot of commentors. I quick count gives me 15-9 in favor of Delete, which is kind of a supermajority. Hmmmm. Supermajority or no, I don't see a clear consensus on this version of the article. No prejudice against an immediate renomination, where we can discuss this more stable version; this would probably be preferable to going to deletion review, if anyone is unhappy with the close. Herostratus 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cradle of Humanity

Cradle of Humanity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Original research --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delete I dimly remember being altogether surprised at this article when I was new on Wikipedia. I'm a conservative Christian, always have been, and it's still something altogether new to me. Look at the end: if I believe Eden to have been at Al-Qurna, why would I include Yemen but not Azerbaijan? It has to be OR. Nyttend 04:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Rewrite significantly: see the next few comments between Reddi and me. Nyttend 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If you are a student of history, have you not heard this term? This can't be a serious vote ... is it? 05:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am a history major — see my userpage, a student at a conservative Christian school (for proof, note that I've taken many pictures around the area) — and a Bible minor. I read extensively. I have never run across this term except on its Wikipedia page. Since it seems that the nominator and I are the only ones wanting to delete the page, you'd better come up with some references for it. Nyttend 12:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Have you taken any classes about prehistory, eg., before written records? Conservative Christian schools may not introduce this topic ... J. D. Redding 16:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Aha, I see what you mean: either I skipped a lot of the article when I came across it some time ago, or a lot has been added. What I remembered of the article (I didn't look at it much now, because I thought I'd read it thoroughly before) was that it was an article strictly about a specific religious viewpoint, not including the nonreligious viewpoint that forms the majority of the article. Now that I read it again, I see that there's a lot more. That's why, by the way, I brought in the history and Bible: if the article were as I thought it was, a discussion of a religious concept alone, I would expect to have had this topic mentioned in my classes. Nyttend 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Great. I glad you stated that .... happy that you though t alil more on it. I agree that it needs some editing ... a few sources ... and cleaning out the use of excessive tagging ... but glad you changed the vote. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 23:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Needs a little cleanup for NPOV, and some better citations for verifiability, but I've heard the term used before. Admittedly, a long, long time ago, and it was in reference to the scientific inquiry as to where modern humanity first arose from. I may go searching for sources this weekend, when I have more time. -- Kesh 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Further debate down the thread has convinced me that this article is a POV fork, and essentially unfixable. It needs to be deleted, and maybe someone can write a new article later on the actual topic at hand. -- Kesh 02:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well known term in history. Needs copy editing and NPOV'ing really. J. D. Redding 05:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (ps., see g.books full view for some refs; more can be seen <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">@ "all books" ... at first, I have to admit, I didn't thnk this was a serious AfD ...)
  • Comment by nominator. This article is disjointed and appears to discuss several things: 1) where homo sapiens first emerged, 2) where biblical literalists place the Garden of Eden, 3) where civilization first arose, 4) various mythological locations for the creation of humanity or the center of the world. The article calls all of these things the "Cradle of Humanity", or at least asserts that other people have called these things the "Cradle of Humanity". The article cites no sources of any kind, either secondary or primary, save one passage from Genesis and some vague references to Darwin. I believe the Cradle of Humanity article arose out of a mistaken attempt to create an "NPOV" article that covered any place that had a claim to be the origin of humanity/civilization, despite the fact that most of these places aren't called the cradle of humanity. As it stands, the article is a mishmash of original research. Google searches do get a number of results for the phrase "cradle of humanity", but none of those are about the term itself. Most of the time the phrase refers to East Africa as the place where modern humans evolved; sometimes it refers to the Fertile Crescent as the place where civilization first arose. We already have a nice article for the first, Olduvai Gorge. We have a good article for the second, Fertile Crescent. If this article is about either one of those things, we can turn it into a redirect (or we can redirect to Cradle of Humankind). If it's about the use of the term "cradle of humanity", we need to get some sources that discuss that topic specifically; if no such sources exist, then the article should go. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a known term in the history field. It's also used by several non-historical sources. It is completely acceptable to delineate several things that are related to the same notion (Scientific, religious, etc ... that's what is great about NPOV'ing things). I would contest that the fact that most of these places aren't called the cradle of humanity. Aren't by who? And if you can answer that, then there are sources for the article ... J. D. Redding 05:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (eg., Religiously ... I would believe ... it can be seen that the cradle would be Eden (for abrahamic religions).)
    • Oh yea ... just because an article doesn't have references, does not mean that it should be deleted. JIMO. There are sources ... have you looked for any? J. D. Redding 05:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yep. I already mentioned Google searches. I don't think there are any sources that are specifically about the term; if you find some, I'd like to see them. Please note that this article has existed since January 2004, there have been complaints on the talk page since 2004 about the lack of sourcing, and no one has brought forward any sources yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I just came across the article ... I just wouldn't be so speedy to delete ... in the long now, things will get fixed. As to the "cradle would be Eden", just a quick scan of the g.scholar items show that they are specifically about the term. J. D. Redding
          • No, a quick scan of the Google Scholar results shows that the phrase "cradle of humanity" is an incidental reference in articles that are about something else. E.g. this is about the geography of the Kharga Oasis, this is about the development of culture in East Africa and its contributions to world history, this is about the development of historiography in the 19th century, this I couldn't access, but has something to do with Percy Bysshe Shelley, and this, a 384 page book, uses the phrase once, to affirm that Afica is where human evolved. Those are results 1-4 and 6 from the Google Scholar search you linked to; I skipped #5 because it's from 1890 and its table of contents talks about Hamites, Semites, Japhethites and their dispersion. None of them are specifically about the term "cradle of humanity". --Akhilleus (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
            • The one you skipped looks like a religious thing. BTW, another applicable term for trying to find sources would be "cradle of mankind" (which is similar to the title of this article). J. D. Redding 07:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • To clarify a bit, it's obvious that a lot of people call the Garden of Eden the "cradle of humanity" or similar things. That doesn't warrant a separate article on cradle of humanity, place where man was created, the center of civilization, or whatever; it might justify a redirect. What we need are sources that focus on the notion of "cradle of humanity" itself. That's my opinion, anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes it's obvious ... that is why copy editing is needed. But don't totally remove references to the other concepts. The topic is notable for an article; not a redirect ... J. D. Redding 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's notable since it's a common term used by many people. Source it appropriately and it should be just fine. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 07:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm aware that my not having heard of it doesn't mean that it's not a common term. However, if it's a common term, it shouldn't be that hard to find references that this page needs and that are badly missing. Nyttend 12:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and source, it's a term I've certainly heard of (in my case, most often in the context of the Tigris/Euphrates confluence in old Mesopotamia). Strong keep, actually; I'd consider this a much more significant and encyclopedic article than the vast majority of WP's pop-culture pages. Some sources to start with: "Could Asia have been the cradle of humanity?", Boston Globe, July 2005; "Oldest human skulls found", BBC News, June 2003; "Africa, the Cradle of Humanity", Humanist Perspectives, issue 156, Spring 2006, "Asia, the Cradle of Humanity", National Geographic, August 2001; "Tanzania, Ethiopia origin for humans", BBC News, April 2003; "Africa: Birthplace of Humanity", Dr. Leonard Jeffries, africawithin.com. However, I don't think we need to capitalize "Humanity" -- we're not talking about the proper name of a specific place, so Cradle of humanity seems more compliant with WP naming conventions. --DeLarge 12:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all those words and not one source! Maybe redirect to cradle of civilization. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This article covers prehistory beginnings and the start of humanity/mankind. Cradle of civilization covers the start of recorded history and foundation of civilization ... 2 different thing in the field of history. J. D. Redding 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Forgot to say ... Be Bold ... anyways ... started to put in references ... J. D. Redding 17:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • J.D., if you think this article is supposed to be about the start of humanity, how is it different than paleoanthropology? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's talking about an academic discipline (a field of study) ... this is about the topic of the beginning of humanity before writing (eg., prehistory). This article may cite paleoanthropologists, but it is not about that field. I don't see how that is a difficult concept to grasp. J. D. Redding 18:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Fewer insults, please. Paleoanthropology is indeed about an academic field, and the history of that field is a history of attempts to locate the beginning of humanity. If you read paleoanthropology there's a lot of overlap with cradle of humanity, and if paleoanthropology were more detailed (it says very little about modern paleoanthropology) the overlap would be even more extensive. What's the rationale for a separate article? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I didn't think I was insulting you, sorry if I did ... I don't want people to take things so personally ... as to the problems with the paleoanthropology article, please improve that article. Again, this is about various research ... this is about the topic of the beginning of humanity before writing (a topic of history) ... paleoanthropology is about a field of study ... different concepts = different articles. J. D. Redding 18:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
          • It is supposed to be about a specific and concise part of human prehistory. The others is about the field of study. The last is more broad and general survey (and takes in account of many things that history itself is not intimately concerned with). Do you understand that? J. D. Redding 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Which "specific and concise part", exactly? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
              • That would be the "specific and concise part" of paleoanthropology interested in the specific region where humanity first arose as a seperate species. Liken it to the Cretaceous period of history: it's a specific section of time which is covered by palentology, but palentology as a whole isn't about just that period. -- Kesh 21:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Ok, so we're talking about a topic within paleoanthropology? Shouldn't Cradle of Humanity just be a section of paleoanthropology, then? And is the paleoanthropological interest in the region where humanity first arose usually classified under the rubric "cradle of humanity"? From my reading, it doesn't seem so: the books on human evolution I've looked at so far, e.g. this, this and this, use the phrase one or a handful of times in the entire text. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • By that reasoning, Cretaceous should only exist as a part of the Paleontology article. I believe this topic is significant enough to warrant its own page, though the current one needs rewritten and possibly renamed. The term, as you note, has not been used often, but it has been used to identify this concept. Would you care to suggest an alternative title for the article? -- Kesh 00:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
              • It a concern to history. A topic within history. The points to redirect this and fact tag the hell out of it wears on me, personally ... off for a bit, need a rest for this. J. D. Redding 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notwithstanding the delete votes of those who think the earth is only 6,000 years old.  ;-) /Blaxthos 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article needs some work, but doesn't appear to be fatally flawed. As for the phrase 'Cradle of Humanity', it's not uncommon (though I don't have the advantages of a Bible school education).DuncanHill 23:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Additonal comment by nominator. As Kesh notes above, the term "cradle of humanity" isn't used often in scientific discussions of where modern humans evolved. As some further proof of this, here's a 2001 article (pdf) that don't use the term, a Smithsonian Institute webpage on the same subject: [1], and another page at actionbioscience.org: [2].
As these pages show, at present there are two significant theories about where modern humans came from--the multiregional hypothesis and the Recent_single-origin_hypothesis, also known as the "out of Africa" model. It's impossible to talk about these hypotheses without discussing fossil and genetic evidence--in other words, discussion of where modern humans first appeared cannot be separated from a discussion of when and how they appeared. Therefore, if the subject of cradle of humanity is "where humanity first arose as a separate species", it will inevitably have substantial overlap with human evolution, paleoanthropology, multiregional hypothesis and recent single-origin hypothesis, and in fact there's substantial overlap between these articles right now.
So, I think Kesh's suggestion above for a rename has considerable merit. A renamed article, perhaps called origins of modern humans or origins of homo sapiens, could incorporate multiregional hypothesis and recent single-origin hypothesis. Such an article could be a sub-article of human evolution. This article would have the advantage of a clearly defined subject, with ample reliable sources. In contrast, while it's easy to find sources that use the phrase "cradle of humanity", sources that discuss the usage and meaning of the phrase are difficult to find. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC) See new comment below. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: This whole article is just a POV-pushing fork to make the creationist view look equal to the evolutionary. Stick with non-broken articles like Recent single-origin hypothesis or Human evolution. As an aside, the evolutionary view presented is around 40 years out of date. Adam Cuerden talk 08:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Not really. Please explain how it's a "POV-pushing fork"? Historcally, the creationist view has been equal to the evolutionary. Say 100-150yr ago, evolution was a fringe since, now it's mainstream. The history of the subject is important. The Topic in general is important too (especially to history). So please explain how it's a "POV-pushing fork"? J. D. Redding 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Besides the minor signs of POV: linking Darwinism instead of Evolution or Human evolution; a See Also containing only links to strict creationist articles, etc - it also has severe Wikipedia:Undue weight issues, treating the creationist theory as the exact equal of the evolutionary. Adam Cuerden talk 01:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- aside from being poorly written, poorly organised and poorly sourced, I fail to see how the creationist view sheds any light on this particular issue -- this should be a science-based article. Not every subject covered on Wikipedia needs to note the "creationist view"; although someone's feeling spunky, why not edit the Boat article to explain that Noah's Ark was the first boat. Can't help you with cars, trains and airplanes, though. •Jim62sch• 10:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Is this a anti-creationist vote? What happen to POV? Historically, the creationist view was significant one in science. Is there a ignorance of history here? ... anyways," poorly written, poorly organised and poorly sourced, is not a reason for deletion, cleanup yes ... but not deletion. J. D. Redding 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – The scientific side is a fork of Recent single-origin hypothesis or Human evolution, and has inaccuracies that are best sorted out in a scientific context rather than a definition of a vague term. The creationist side could appropriately be merged into history of creationism. .. dave souza, talk 12:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Might be good to reduce parts of it (eg., cleanup/rewrite issues) and {{main}} it ... but it's not a fork. JIMO. J. D. Redding 19:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Dave Souza and Adam Cuerden. Compare with Origin of life. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unreferenced POV fork. TimVickers 13:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • How is that? Please expalin ... J. D. Redding
      • The article claims to review the current ideas on the origins of humans, however the creationist viewpoint is given equal weight to the verifiable scientific viewpoint. This is a clear violation of the NPOV policy. TimVickers 21:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Dave Souza has listed the two article that this is redundant with, Recent single-origin hypothesis and Human evolution. Nothing to do with cleanup. POV fork. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Think you missed the intro part that states "All human cultures contain concepts about the origin of mankind, and through religion and mythology have attempted to anchor these ideas through reference to historic times and places, known to them." J. D. Redding 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. AfD is not for clean up. --Nricardo 22:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Dave Souza has listed the two article that this is redundant with, Recent single-origin hypothesis and Human evolution. Nothing to do with cleanup. POV fork. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Think you missed the intro part that states "All human cultures contain concepts about the origin of mankind, and through religion and mythology have attempted to anchor these ideas through reference to historic times and places, known to them." J. D. Redding 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with editors above - just because the article needs improvement does not mean it should be on the AfD list. Heliumballoon 15:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Dave Souza has listed the two article that this is redundant with, Recent single-origin hypothesis and Human evolution. Nothing to do with cleanup. POV fork. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Think you missed the intro part that states "All human cultures contain concepts about the origin of mankind, and through religion and mythology have attempted to anchor these ideas through reference to historic times and places, known to them." J. D. Redding 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Now that I understand better what's going on, it's clear that the scientific section is a POV fork, and the creationist section adds further undue weight to that POV. The way to "improve" a POV fork is to delete it. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Not a fork. There is sources and it is an important history subject. J. D. Redding 19:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • J. D. Redding (User:Reddi) is changing the article quite a bit, and seems to think that the article is supposed to be a comparison between evolution and creation. How is that not a POV fork? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • No ... I am trying to change it to be more of a historical article ... not the evolution vs creationism bullsh*t that usually goes on with topic like this. J. D. Redding 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • History, as an academic discipline, doesn't deal with human evolution. Paleoanthropology does. Why do you think any creationist stuff should be in the article at all? I notice that someone deleted that section, and you restored it. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • History is the continuous, systematic narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all events in time, in relation to humanity. J. D. Redding 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • This article falls into the venue of Wikipedia:WikiProject History. A project that seeks to provide a concise and accurate record of notable facts and data, organizations, individuals and events in history, including background and their current status. J. D. Redding
          • Despite the definition you've provided, the academic discipline of history doesn't deal with human evolution. It's the province of paleoanthrolopogy (a field within anthropology). This isn't a history topic, and you still haven't explained why the creationist stuff is in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Contrary to the facts? ... You may not accept that history does, but historians do. Paleoanthrolopogy is a specialized subfield in historical research, but it is not the only field that studies this ... and interdisciplinary approaches are applied to the subject. J. D. Redding 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
              • So, you're saying that if I went to my local research university, I'd find paleoanthropologists in the history department? Is that where I'd find other physical anthropologists? (Hey, why's the creationist stuff in this article?) --Akhilleus (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • You can try to twist the argument any way you like but .... paleoanthropology combines the disciplines of paleontology and physical anthropology. Biological anthropology (or physical anthropology) is a branch of anthropology which is in turn the comparative study of the physical and social characteristics of humanity through the examination of historical distribution, cultural history, acculturation, and cultural relationships. The "creationist stuff" in this article is because historically, if you don't understand (or simply ignoring it) is that this was a theory to explain the cradle of humanity. I think the prior ... I will give you the benefit of the doubt in good faith. Paleoanthropologists will not be in the history department (... I not a academia specialist, but I think that will be in the anthropology department most likely, but will work with historians) ...J. D. Redding 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Based on your comments that the creationist view is only significant as a historical curiosity, I have renamed the final section "History", which fits the focus of this section on discussing such historical viewpoints. TimVickers 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Ok. I think that was good .. I thought thatyou were trying to merge them. Sorry. I put in Historical views are the top of the secion J. D. Redding 21:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (will crosspost this to the talk page too with a diff link here.)
          • Of course, all these changes are making the article more redundant with human evolution, except that more air time is given to the creationist stuff. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • If it is allowed time, it will be different than the human evolution article, as stated before ... this is a specific time and place thatis being looked at .. the other is a more general article. The topic is notable on itself ... "Cradle of humanity" -wikipedia 53,300 results. 621 booka at this result or 248 scholar articles at this result. J. D. Redding 21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • If this is history, it's incredibly shoddy – skipping the long history of biblical ideas to go to early scientists, and making the unsubstantiated statement that "earlier views of the contemporary scientific establishment that the Cradle of Humanity was to be found in Asia" pre the 1850s, when the the scientific establishment was defending direct creation of humanity – is there some source saying Eden was thought to be in Asia? Then a fork of the Recent single-origin hypothesis which mentions Lucy only in the context of some 1999 French article asserting Afarensis did not represent the origin of man, and other references including a BBC article which makes no mention of Cradle of humanity – is this a history of the term, or a ragbag for an inaccurate history of ideas on origins, or is about origins which by definition are prehistoric? Unless, of course, you're taking the Creationist line that origins are indeed historic. Which brings us to the last section, presenting the old ideas of where Eden might be as a modern idea before wandering back to the 19th century. What is this article intended to do? ... dave souza, talk 21:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • It's not intended "to do" anything but provide for the information relevant to history, world history, and the beginning of humanity. As stated in the intro. J. D. Redding 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Cleanup, from what I have seen, is not a reason for deletion. J. D. Redding 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • So what is this other than a POV fork? ... dave souza, talk 22:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
              • You personally can call it a "fork"; though it is not. Have you read the various comment by the various people on this page? I think it's been plainly stated by me and others. J. D. Redding 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
                • If this is a neutral, POV-free article on origins, why does it only contain Christian mythology and badly-explained evolution? There are qquie a lot of other religions out there, you know. Adam Cuerden talk 01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Cleanup is not a reason for deletion. As to your other point, the other religious concepts should be dealt with. It's half and half now about what to do with the article (undecided; Dels/Keeps) ... anyways, if it gets deleted, atleast there is undelete and all this can be worked on and dealt with in a NPOV fashion at a later date. J. D. Redding 17:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Delete Per Adam Cuerden and Jim62sch. It is poorly written, but that can be fixed. It is unreferenced, and that can't be fixed, because it will have to use non-scientific Creationist pseudo science articles to reference it. It is a POV fork from decent articles. I'd say merge to something else, but when I look at other articles like human evolution, this article doesn't even deserve a footnote. If this travesty of an article needs to stay, the rename it to Creationist Perspectives on Human Evolution and be done with it. We'll change the lead to indicate what science says today and let the Christian theories of this POV fork rule the day. Orangemarlin 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Cleanup is not a reason for deletion (ala., your "poorly written"). The unreferenced part can be fixed; many articles are tagged as unreference; not a reason fo deletion. This is a historical subject. J. D. Redding 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (PS., seems if POV editors are removing any references to non-scientific sources; something a historian would not do ...)
You are spamming this RfD with the same stuff over and over again. If you had read what I and others have written, we don't care that it is poorly written or poorly referenced. It is a POV fork, and cannot be referenced. That it is poorly written and referenced only makes it mean that it is a poorly written and POV fork not worthy of keeping.Orangemarlin 19:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about this more, your responses seem to make me feel that you own the article. Why aren't other editors interested in this article? Why does it read like original research? Orangemarlin 19:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not because it is poorly writted, poorly cited, and suffers from OWN/POV problems - all of which are painfully true - but because the main concept is so vaguely defined. Is this an article about the evolutionary origin of mankind, or the origin of human civilisation? It seems that any precise definition of the term "Cradle of Humanity" would clearly show the article to be redundant and/or a POV fork from existing articles, as per Dave souza, Samsara, Akhilleus etc. Wikipedia should not be a platform for such woolly thinking and imprecise concepts (pace Time Cube, haha). SheffieldSteel 13:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a clear and precise item in history (something that modern culture lack indepth knowledge of ...). It's about : Where did mankind start; not civilization (that's covered elsewhere). J. D. Redding 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (PS., seems if POV editors are removing any references to non-scientific sources; something a historian would not do ...)
So, it's not about civilisation, nor is it about human evolution. It seems that this article can only be defined in terms of what it is not, and it seems increasingly as if "what it's not" is growing to encompass more and more wikipedia articles. If, for example, this article is about where mankind started, why is it not called "cradle of mankind" rather than of humanity? Oh, that's right, there's already an article of that name. The only thing that this article definitely is is a POV fork. SheffieldSteel 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete wooly POV fork per SheffieldSteel. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I think Adam, Dave and SheffieldSteel sum it up pretty nicely. Guettarda 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename and rewrite or else delete This sort of material is not on Wikipedia already? I find that hard to believe. I do not like the title very much either. --Filll 19:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the earliest version of this article is very instructive. It started as an incredibly POV creationist rant that was amateurish and replete with mis-statements, obnoxious claims, and just general nonsense. To try to build a reasonable argument on this awful foundation is just ludicrous. The smartest thing would be to fold any useful information in here that is not somewhere else in Wikipedia into the appropriate articles, or else just go to a sandbox and build an article on this subject from scratch if one does not exist. --Filll 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
A sure sign that this article is in trouble is the lack of mention of the Leakey's work, or of Mitochondrial Eve or Y-Chromosonal Adam or of a large number of similar things. I think comparing various origin theories with the current scientific understanding and having a careful history of scientific theories would be useful and interesting, but this article has a long long long way to go before it reaches that level.--Filll 19:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Filll makes many good points above, this certainly seems very redundant. Possibly protect and redirect to a more appropriate page? David D. (Talk) 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


  • Further Comment First D.Redding, you ought to just make a comment section to respond to what are, in general, the same comments from nearly everyone. Let's start right at the beginning. If "Cradle of Humanity" is a regularly used description, I'd think a 2006 reference would be useful, rather than one that is 130 years old. But after that, this article becomes a mishmash of science, philosophical musings, and the history of this so-called cradle. It moves back and forth between a mythical treatment and scientific treatment. I can find better scientific articles on Wiki. I can find better historical ones. And frankly this qualifies as nothing more than a paragraph or at best a subsection of broad articles. So I amend my delete to say that why does this article need to exist? Orangemarlin 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • delete as OR/POV fork. heqs 08:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The term itself seems notable, and neither of the two articles which this article is supposedly a POV fork of mention the term at all. The content of the article may poorly relate to the title, and may indeed make the whole thing look like a POV fork of other articles, but that sounds like a reason to delete everything that isn't obviously related to the topic until the article is a stub, not to just delete the topic. Homestarmy 15:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I accept this article needs cleanup. This article is not a POV of any single individual but a very large group of people. It has been proved beyond doubt that mankind did not come out of thin air so why can't people let keeping this article.Sauron 15:25, 8 June 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.