Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criminality gene

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 delete - both articles contain the same essay. If someone wants to have a go at writing an encyclopedic article from it, I'll gladly provide you with a copy to work on. WjBscribe 01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criminality gene

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

Also nominating Genetics of criminality. Referenced, so I'm bringing these here instead of using prod. These articles(which are duplicates of each other) look very much like original research via synthesis, and I'm not sure if they should be kept, or simply cleaned up heavily. Salad Days 01:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Genetics of criminality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Weak delete as synthesis. Reads like a standard literature-based research/thesis/essay; very literary tone. DMacks 03:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Very Weak Keep for Genetics of criminality only, which is by far the better title, if the article is rewritten. It does look as if it was a school essay, but it could easily be wikified sufficiently. It also needs more recent references--the ones given are standard, but a lot has been done since. DGG 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep — But needs a lot of work (I am referring to Genetics of criminality one). Like the comments above, it reads far too much like a thesis. --RazorICE 05:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is neither a collection of essays nor a crystal ball. When someone finds a gene, we can have an article on it. This is pure speculation at this point though. --Selket Talk 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Criminality gene as original research. Keep Genetics of criminality - this appears to be a notable historical line of thought which still has its adherents - but per DGG needs to be updated. --Charlene 06:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The text is the same, they just have different titles .... Salad Days 11:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The theories discussed here seem to be the same, or very similar, to the ones discussed at anthropological criminology. This might be a candidate for a merger. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Very non-encyclopedic style. Sounds like a "C" term paper from school. Very POV, such as: "As an evidence, we, Filipinos coined expression that relates criminality to its root: “Kung anong puno ay siyang bunga.” Edison 14:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delete NPOV concern. SYSS Mouse 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak KeepSeems quite interesting but weird--Slogankid 19:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delete NPOV / synthetic OR concern. If the article ends up being kept, the references/citations need to be footnoted, inline, so that other editors can check the work. Otherwise this reads like pseudoscience. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
WP includes pseudoscience, if anyone notices it and writes about it. DGG 06:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that in Wikipedia, where I've encountered many folks arguing for more and more citations, notability accountability and verifiability, and where the common argument for censorship-like behavior is that it "makes Wikipedia look bad", it's OK to also write about pseudoscience, but I guess we're aiming for completeness, not avoiding self-contradiction. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 22:18, 22 April 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.