Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence and evolutionary psychology

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 of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Violence and evolutionary psychology

See also Sociobiological analysis of rape (AfD discussion) and How to predict US vetoes (AfD discussion).

As the author said in the article, this is a personal essay. It can't be speedy deleted because I don't know whether the blurb on the top of the article is a request or not. It could be a copyvio, but I can't find a definite source. The very interesting article from which the information here is drawn can be found here, but it hasn't been copied exactly. Delete this copy as a personal essay. Graham/pianoman87 talk 00:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say delete as this is most likely original research. If not, it needs to be cleaned up! Bjelleklang - talk 00:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research jnothman ^talk 01:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research - content belongs on related pages JFW | T@lk 01:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikibooks:Violence and evolutionary psychology. -- Perfecto  01:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • changed, see below. -- Perfecto  16:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Perfecto. --Daedalus-Prime 01:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Move per perfecto.--->Newyorktimescrossword 02:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• How does this fit within Wikibooks' remit? Uncle G 03:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR. Edwardian 05:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and hope that someone cleans up the grammar and makes it more encyclopedic. I believe the material dealt with is encyclopedic, but the structure is essay-like(e.g. facts should be moved to the front and examples later on, instead of the reverse). After a restructure it could be quite appropriate for Wikipedia. A1kmm 11:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but what title and context do we give it? -- Perfecto  18:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research, or move per Perfecto. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research. If another performs the transwiki, that's fine, but original research is not allowable in wikipedia space. Geogre 18:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or cleanup. it's an important topic, and books like Demonic Males : Apes and the Origins of Human Violence and Peacemaking among Primates make it clear that it's widely studied. But until somebody gets the urge to write an encyclopedic overview, this should be nixed. --William Pietri 18:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR Melchoir 02:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Semi-OR. This is an encyclopedic topic, but this article isn't it. Klonimus 05:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The essay has insight and the author has already put it in GPL - why waste it by deleting it? -- Perfecto  06:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • First: Content here is licensed under the GFDL, not the GPL. Second: Please refresh your memory of our no original research official policy, which answers that question. Third: Please explain, as asked above, why you think that original research falls within Wikibooks' remit. Uncle G 10:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • After reading Wikibooks:What_Wikibooks_is_not, I now understand what Uncle G means. However, Wikibooks:WIW also suggests Academia Wikicities - this might be a better fit. -- Perfecto  16:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have to disagree with the article has insight opinion. Pete.Hurd 18:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essays violate NOR. HGB 00:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Mirv has pointed out that this is a straight copy of this Everything2 article by its author. Uncle G 01:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We really need to stop this before more Everything2 essays get placed onto Wikipedia! They clearly break WP:NOT a soapbox and WP:NOR. We also really need to merge these essay AfDs into one. Wcquidditch | Talk 01:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete 1) original research 2) poor quality. This is really high-school level thinking, and not the level of analysis or accuracy required for an encyclopedia. Moving the content of this article to other pieces would only lead to having to fix the other articles afterwards. Pete.Hurd 18:23, 13 November 2005 (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.