Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution and Culture

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 merge. There is no clear target as of now, so I am moving it to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Evolution and Culture as a holding cell. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution and Culture

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This reads as a whole lot of original research to me. I don't see anything that is salvageable into and encyclopedia article here but I thought I'd ask around (or that wouldn't already be covered by other articles). Sasquatch t|c 22:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article looks like a well-written student essay. It seems well cited for individual assertions, but there may be synthesis of all the different concepts discussed, and this is not allowed in WP articles, per WP:SYNTH. Synthesis by itself suggests editing the article to improve it, rather than outright deletion. The other potential problem is that this article may be redundant with other already existing articles. I am no expert, but it seems like Sociocultural evolution, Biocultural evolution, Social evolution, Sociobiology, Darwinian anthropology and Cultural evolutionism all overlap with the current article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my general take on it as well. None of the information is wrong, it's just in the wrong place. Sasquatch t|c 19:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I recommend delete, not because none of the information is notable or worthwhile, but because the article itself seems to be largely synthesis based off of useful information that could more effectively be placed elsewhere. Much of what isn't synthesis appears to be covered elsewhere, so the existence of this article is somewhat redundant. Chri$topher (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Article: Although sociocultural evolution, biocultural evolution, social evolution, sociobiology, darwinian anthropology and cultural evolutionism all appear to be redundant with the current article in question, this article addresses culture as an adaptive function through the lens of Evolutionary Psychology which is very different from the articles listed above. This is the first page to exist on the topic, and could undoubtedly be expanded upon, while the other pages covering the topic only barely address the relevant issues. I vote to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterofthepages (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTESSAY. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
see what we can merge As mentioned, this is reasonably good writing. It happens not to fit into WP very well, which is the fault of those responsible for the course, in not guiding the student to a more effective encyclopedic focus. I am not happy to delete competent work of this sort completely, and we should see how much of it we can use. (Incompetent work is of course another matter.) There's been considerable discussion of this course on the Education noticeboard; they didn't seem to understand how to find topics, and it's rather late in the term to help them, but we should do what we can. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
see what we can merge per essaycism. Specifically I believe that at this moment the easier (or only) content to save would be the theories of culture section either to a general article (I have just found culture theory, which is a really poor article at the moment, but there may be others more suitable), or to the specific theories articles that are described.--Garrondo (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.