Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic Priming

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Priming

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Topic appears to lack notability Health Researcher (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (by nom). This is a promotional article for a topic (some new thinking about genetic psychology) that I regard as worthy and worthwhile. But I do not see signs that it has yet become notable. Since Wikipedia is not in the business of forecasting notability (WP:NOTCRYSTAL), and is not in the business of promoting worthwhile but not-yet-notable ideas, I believe the article should be deleted. If at some point the topic does acquire the needed notability (WP:NOTE), the article can be generated at that time. At present, based on the author's own words and on a Google search HERE there seem to be a few mentions in blogs that themselves don't seem obviously notable, where the author was given a venue to present his ideas, and a few online comments were offered. There is nothing in Google Scholar (HERE). If there is sufficient notability, then that must be made completely clear in the article itself by citations to the appropriate blogs. It is better that the author understand how Wikipedia works, and create a page when the topic has become notable, than to prolong the agony or propogate misunderstanding of Wikipedia. -- Health Researcher (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that blogs could be cited in Wikipedia articles. If they can, this can easily be done.John jacob lyons (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general blogs should not be cited except in exceptional circumstances. They are regarded as self-published sources with all the limitations that the designation implies. There are some exceptions for large blogs widely seen as reliable sources, but those are very few and far between. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does not the Biology of Religion blog of the Nature Publishing Group count as a reliable source? Also, please bear in mind that this article was not really 'self-published' since it was invited by the editor.John jacob lyons (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to suggest that the article at http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion/2011-03-24/the-genetic-priming-of-religiosity-guest-post-by-john-jacob-lyons?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d8bc0721c26ed03%2C0 does establish that Genetic Priming is notable. It is a well-known scientific blog that is recommended by The Nature Publishing Group which is one of the most respected such groups in the scientific world. Furthermore I would add that I was invited to write this piece by the Editor of the blog. The discussion that followed was uniformly positive. John jacob lyons (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal does not make a scientific topic notable. Can one or two mentions in a blog do what a peer-reviewed journal cannot do? I remain skeptical that notability exists at the present time, but have not scrutinized all policy pages. What do others say? -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that "recommended by The Nature Publishing Group" (the author's claim), whatever precisely that means -- (perhaps a user-submitted list of potentially interesting science blogs), does not mean it is by that publishing group. The Nature Publishing Group seems to have its own collection of blogs at http://blogs.nature.com, where it appears that once or twice the genetic priming topic may have been mentioned briefly, in passing. Health Researcher (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a student of Psychology of Religion, I found this article made a useful contribution to the question of why people are religous and act in religious ways. It has created considerable interest in the academic community of which I am aware. Alice Herron MA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.143.226 (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 87.112.143.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Genetic priming theory has created considerable interest/ discussion among my friends and colleagues in the field of Evolutionary Psychology and in Psychology of Religion in particular. The article is interesting, well-written and potentially important in Evolutionary Theory. It should definitely be retained in Wikipedia. A. Violetta Barzankian-Kaydan, BSc (Psych) Hons, MSc Psych, MA Psych of Religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.222.137 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 90.204.222.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How Wikipedia Works: Editors new to Wikipedia - thank you for your interest in participating in Wikipedia - should understand that "notability" is regulated by guidelines listed at WP:NOTE. Therefore creating a positive verbal buzz does not constitute notability. Note also that the notability guideline says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity.... Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally," and that "Multiple sources are generally expected". Please also be aware that this discussion is not a vote, and, for future reference, please also read WP:MEAT with regard to soliciting comments from outside editors. -- Health Researcher (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Failes to pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: little evidence of widespread usage in this context and too narrow a sourcing basis to demonstrate notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N and also has WP:COI issues. The phrase "genetic priming" is used in the literature, but with a different meaning to that of John Jacob Lyons. -- 202.124.74.110 (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2011 (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.