Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devolution (biology) 2

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Four keep votes are from accounts that were created within the month preceding the vote, so were discarded. Even so there are enough votes overall for me to make a determination. There is no consensus to delete. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devolution (biology)

This page was voted to delete, but that was before R. Fiend rewrote it. However the votes still said delete so I deleted it. Then this appeared at VfU and was voted undelete but to relist it and see what happens. So let's find out now :) Redwolf24 20:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. I will not vote. Redwolf24 20:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but probably rename (get that "biology" out of there, although I'm not sure what to replace it with). The article could use some improvements too. Old VfD here, by the way.-R. fiend 20:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep should somehow link to DEVO and Church of the Sub-Genius. Hamster Sandwich 21:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We have articles on pseudoscience, we have articles on bad science, but we shouldn't have articles on non-existant science or neologisms. A search on pubmed unsurprisingly only yields papers considering devolution as a political process. Note too that this has nothing to do with evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncharris (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 August 2005
• Keep. Definitely concur with R.f; "(vernacular)", perhaps? Or "(mockery)"? Eldereft 23:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Moreover, the article wrong in it's key point - it asserts that the theory of evolution demands less complex organisms evolve into more complex organisms, and thus 'devolution' is the process in reverse. That's simply not true. The theory of evolotion is that organisms evolve adaptations to their environment, with those that develop better adaptations compared to their competitors being the ones that survive in the long term. Whether this process makes them "more" or "less" complex is an entirely relative judgement (I.E. both manatee and platypus can be argued to be more complex or less complex than their theoretical ancestors, depending on viewpoint). Changing vote to Keep and expand, per R. Fiend's comments, below - you're right. =) Xaa 23:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • True, and the article expilictly states that. It is not a scientifically valid term, but it is pretty commonly used. And any word used in 1955 cannot be a neologism. -R. fiend 23:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment On re-reading the article, I realize you are correct and I am wrong. =) Xaa 23:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - this isn't actually science per se - but is still worthy of an article. Needs links to DEVO etc. Secretlondon 00:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it is not a term, and not used by any pseudo-theory (one supposes the article would cite them if it were), then it is just made up. If necessary, mention it in the article for the novels it came from, but without mandating a merge. (Good work on the rewrite, nevertheless.) -Splash 01:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. R. Fiend's rewrite. My understanding is that Devo took their name from this concept as well. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Cool. that sounds a bit familair to me too. If you can confirm it by all means add it to the article. -R. fiend 02:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep: The article will improve as it evolves. Deletion would be devolutionary. Ombudsman 02:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As I said during the first VfD, I think that anyone searching for info about "devolution" should be informed that evolution does not work this way. Explodicle 02:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this rewrite. good article, has links to where the term has been used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColdFeet (talk • contribs) 08:41, 8 August 2005

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.