Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurrent evolution

Add links
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 no consensus. But agreement that it needs cleanup badly.  Sandstein  12:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent evolution

[edit]
Recurrent evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The user Dogrt attempted to nominate this for deletion earlier. His reasoning is as follows: "The article is mostly a collection of meaningless sentences such as "Recurrent evolution is the noise that is evolution." I would like to see it erased."

I have no opinion on deletion, just procedurally nominating it on this user's behalf. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry for my computer illiteracy. —Dan Graur —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. AfD is not for cleanup. Nom's reasoning about nonsense applies only to the very first sentence in the article, and that appears to be a recent change. I don't claim to be knowledgeable in this field but there are mentions for it in Google Books and Google Scholar going back over 10 years, suggesting this is not a neologism but may be jargon. Article could use attention from an expert but nothing here to justify deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really seem that far gone to me, it's just overly technical, and the layout needs improvement. I don't have the technical expertise to clean up the science-y bits but someone should. I tagged the article for attention from WikiProject Evolutionary biology. Many good articles have started off as someone's homework. Ivanvector (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name one Good Article that started out as incoherently as this one? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second Good Article I clicked on just now, Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant, is one that started off pretty rough. Not quite as bad as this, admittedly. I just don't like the idea of blowing things up when there's anything useful just for the sake of blowing them up. Ivanvector (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The latter article is factual, and it is easier to improve a factual article than a windy pseudo-philosophical one like this one. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Not impossible, though, if the topic is worth keeping. Ivanvector (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to parallel evolution as WP:ESSAY. The phrase "recurrent evolution" occurs a few hundred times in the literature, but not with the meaning given here. Rather it seems to mostly refer to repeated evolution of the same features (i.e. like parallel evolution, but as repeated branches from the same lineage -- polyphyly or paraphyly). In other words, applying the usual meaning of the adjective "recurrent" to the noun "evolution." The essential concept in that usage is already covered in Parallel evolution. Looking at the sources of the present article, there seems to be a great deal of WP:SYNTH; the sources do not support some of the author's flights of fancy. Xxanthippe is right about WP:BLOWITUP. -- 101.119.14.233 (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NUKEANDPAVE I don't think wp:IDONTLIKEIT qualifies as a reason for deletion through DRV. But as Xanthippe and our IP address say the article itself is a bad one and needs serious work. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to the article, recurrent evolution refers to the category of both parallel evolution and convergent evolution (not just parallel evolution as IP 101 says above). It does kind of make sense as a category given the meaning of the word "recurrent," but I agree that many of the sources are merely cases where the words "recurrent" and "evolution" happened to occur together. I understand most of the terms, and the article, though poorly written, appears to be mostly coherent (main exception: I don't understand "Recurrent evolution is when patterns emerge out of this stochastic process.") - I'm just not completely convinced that the sources treat it as a separate concept. I think the main source from which any case can be made is the first one, Maeso 2012. Perhaps the author (User:J.a.tarkington) could comment here and clarify. Sunrise (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be more specific? Which sources, and which statements in the article do they contradict? If the statements are central to the article, then I'll change my comment to a Delete. Sunrise (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The literature (see e.g. Google Books) uses "recurrent evolution" with the ordinary sense of "recurrent." Phrases like "the signal in the noise that is evolution" and "recurrent evolution is when patterns emerge out of this stochastic process" are not supported. -- 101.119.14.244 (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't appear to be communicating effectively, so never mind. :-) Sunrise (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This freely available article does a good job as summing up the use of the phrase recurrent evolution. Essentially it is just an umbrella term for both convergent and parallel evolution as well as recurrent evolution within a single lineage. The problem I think arises from the multiple uses of the phrase "recurrent evolution". The author of that paper says the phrase has lacked a precise definition, and this has led to confusion. He identifies 3 ways the phrase recurrent evolution has been used: Recurrent Phenotypic Evolution, Recurrent Molecular Evolution, and Recurrent Genomic Evolution. The problem with the current wikipedia article is it jumps back and forth between which of those three it is referring to. In the opening paragraph it defines evolution as the change in allele frequencies within a population, but then uses the phenotypic definition of recurrent evolution, where a common phenotype(not common alleles) arises between populations. Despite that I do think the article is salvageable, but whether it is easier or not to start from scratch I don't know.AioftheStorm (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Recurrent_evolution&oldid=1138288242"