Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event


 * 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 to delete. It's not clear whether there's consensus for a merge, but that's a conversation that can continue at the article talk page. Skomorokh 14:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Anthropocene extinction event

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a case of WP:Synthesis I bring it to AfD because the title is a WP:Neologism and the creator of the page is using this neologism to synthesise research to create an article beyond what the sources imply. This page should be deleted although some of the information within it could be placed elsewhere in wikipedia Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel obliged to expand on this rationale and say that this is also content forking under a neologism term. I am now spelling it out explicitly just because some people are getting bogged down with the whole 'someone has used this phrase so we should have a separate article on it' argument. Of course it has been used, but it is still a neologism and a content fork. It is so poorly defined across the very limited (not peer reviewed) sources that any definition here is an unavoidable synthesis. It is a content fork because there are better more appropriate articles in existance that can easily cover all of the research. Polargeo (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please show evidence or reasoning for Synth, and how it is "unavoidable". Fork was already contradicted in my edit of 10:27 3 Aug, at the end (requoted and expanded upon with reasoning below, in this edit). The central point of Neologism is the first thing I addressed, and, I contend, completely refuted. Anarchangel (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 *  keep  This term is being used in several reliable sources, can be found in google scholar and books. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just searched for the phrase 'Anthropocene extinction event' on google books and got zero hits. I got 1 hit on google scholar to the 2008 Wooldridge paper that failed peer-review. Looks very neologistic to me. Polargeo (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redir to Holocene extinction event, merge any useful content. Vsmith (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to pick one rationale, too. You cannot have your cake and eat it.  Our copyright licences forbid it.  Either the content is deleted, or it is kept and merged.  The two are mutually exclusive.  Uncle G (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Read what I said: "merge any useful content" - note the "useful", there are ref'd bits there which may be useful elsewhere, didn't mean to imply merging the OR synthesis stuff. Vsmith (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had already read what you said the first time. Now read what I wrote, and consider that I nowhere mentioned verifiability or original research.  I repeat:  Merger or deletion.  You can only have one.  Pick one. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all explained at Merge and delete. -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a self-contradictory nomination. If the information in the article "could be placed elsewhere in wikipedia", then it must be verifiable and not original research.  (If it weren't, it couldn't be placed anywhere in Wikipedia.)  If it is verifiable and not original research, it cannot be "beyond what the sources imply".  Pick one rationale.  Either this information is verifiable and not original research and supported by the several sources already cited in the article, or it isn't. While you are thinking about which rationale to pick, go and read this paper, this news story, this commentary, and this paper.  Uncle G (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a very subtle AfD. This article is a synthesis. By creating a whole article on a newly formed phrase on a theory that is still being defined and lumping together lots of disparate references this can become original research on wikipedia. I know we often just say "look there are some reliable sources" but that misses the point of WP:Synthesis. This information is being promoted far beyond the sources by making an unnecessary new article based on a WP:Neologism. We do not need an article entitled Anthropocene extinction event. This is something that hasn't happened and the Anthropocene isn't a completely accepted term. Any information that turns up can be very thoroughly incorporated into current articles, such as Holocene extinction event. We are in the Holocene, the Anthropocene is not completely recognised by the scientific comunity so why can't we put any information in the holocene article and get rid of an unnecessary extra article on a neologism term which will only dilute wikipedia and detract from providing good quality encyclopedic information in the articles where it is most appropriate. Polargeo (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also an article entitled Extinction_risk_from_global_warming which has been on wikipedia for 2 years. If this current addition is not a potential WP:POVFORK and an attempt to promote the neologistic phrase 'Anthropocene extinction event' for environmentalist propaganda reasons then I don't know what it is. This is unfortunately what User:Andrewjlockley is using wikipedia for. There are no reasonable grounds for a separate article. Polargeo (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you should be at Duplicate articles, not AFD. You've written a whole lot of words, but you've yet to address the point that I made at all.  So I repeat it: Either this information is verifiable and not original research and supported by the several sources already cited in the article, or it isn't.  Either this is a duplicate of extinction risk from global warming to be merged, and you are in the wrong place, or it isn't a duplicate and your assertion that it is a fork is, by definition, false.  Your rationales continue to be self-contradictory.  Pick one rationale.  Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I pick synthesis. Delete the article to get rid of the synthesis which is OR per OR. I stated this at the very beginning of my delete rationale. You then stated that the article contained reliable sources which completely missed the point of my delete rationale. This article should not exist, it is not a direct duplicate of another article. These sources can certainly be used in other articles but creating an article on a neologistic term by combining these sources creates a synthesis of the sources which takes the term well beyond its current very new use in the literature. This is not yet a scientifically definable term, so it certainly shouldn't be defined by AJL in a wikipedia article. The wikipedia article then becomes the definer of this term and of the science. Sometimes people do not realise the prominance of wikipedia, we should not let this happen. Bits from this article may exist in other wikipedia articles, not necessarily all in the same article. Polargeo (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You then stated that the article contained reliable sources &mdash; No, I did not. Go and read what I wrote, again, properly. This is not yet a scientifically definable term &mdash; Then how do you account for the scientific papers that define it, such as Zalasiewicz et al. (cited in the article),, , , , this, and this for examples?  Uncle G (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I said that 'Anthropocene extinction event' is not definable across the sources. Your first source is defining the 'Anthropocene' not the 'Anthropocene extinction event'. Your second source is talking about the 'sixth mass extinction' which according to the source is partly to do with continued land use. The sixth mass extinction is not just about the Anthropocene it applies to ongoing human actions including hunting and deforestation throughout the Holocene and has been used before the term Anthropocene was even invented. Your third source also mentions 'sixth mass extinction' and does not use the word Anthropocene. Ditto fourth, fifth and sixth sources. If we write an article entitled 'Anthropocene extinction event' and put these sources in as examples this is an incorrect synthesis. If we were discussing an article entitled 'sixth mass extinction event' I wouldn't have brought it to AfD. I would have simply said lets redirect this duplicate article to the Holocene article. I am sure that the authors of those papers who have been careful enough not to use the neologistic term 'Anthropocene extinction event' will be annoyed to find their papers cited as backing up the term which they haven't used for the very good scientific reason of poor definition. When you actually find a peer-reviewed scientific paper (ie not the Wooldrige paper which failed peer-review or the conference/colloquia papers which can be written in one afternoon and never checked by another scientist) that uses the term 'Anthropocene extinction event' and gives us a proper definition we might have a case for an article remaining here but at present we have only a synthesis where we put together several selected papers and end up defining the term here on wikipedia. This is completely unnecessary and should IMO be avoided at all costs. I haven't seen anything of value that cannot easily fit into the existing articles in some form. Polargeo (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So this should go because we are content forking subsections and bits of other articles under a poorly defined neologism term and creating original research by synthesis. It is a silly and unnecessary thing to do and does not improve wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep The title term, and other listed variants of it, are well grounded in respected sources, some of which are cited in the article. The alternative holocene extinction event, is far less well grounded, with the only major reference referring back to wikipedia!  Recent extinctions fall into two distinct events - the quaternary extinction event and the anthropocene extinction event, with the latter generally considered to have occurred after the industrial revolution. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The holocene extinction article covers the sixth extinction event. You are trying to make the sixth extinction event look like the anthropocene extinction event, which is mostly a predicted event in the future. The term you have created this new article around is a neologistic phrase with a neologism within it. The fact that you are trying to separate the sixth extinction event from quarternary extinction and holocene extinction shows that you do not understand what you are doing. It would be better if you edited the current articles and added this information into them without creating a load of unecessary articles and redirects. You are creating articles and modifying lead sections of existing articles without understanding the phrases that you are using. Polargeo (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion piece, and not a widely held one as far as I can see. I've been clear about the ambiguities that exist currently. The current extinction (post industrial revolution) clearly qualifies as an extinction event worthy of separate comment - as evidenced by the literature on the topic. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly as to the holocene extinction event having no grounding, this shows you are basing your facts on rather poor google searches. Through my work I have access to the ISI Web of Knowledge which contains data on all major scientific journals. So I did a topic search on this and came up with the following results
 * Holocene mass extinction 30 papers
 * Holocene extinction event 16 papers
 * sixth mass extinction 13 papers
 * sixth extinction event 7 papers
 * Anthropocene mass extinction 1 paper (A 2008 conference abstract - not a peer reviewed paper)
 * Anthropocene extinction event 0 papers Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the article you will find the sources there. FYI a term doesn't have to be in PR literature to be worthy of an article (not that that matters) Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Except of course that the articles references .... don't. For instance the two colloquium papers, which do not mention anthropocene at all. So: while there are references, they do not support the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sources. I have no objection to a better title, but it is time to bring this material together into an article.  DGG (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it time to 'bring this material together' under a neologism when nobody has even attempted to add it properly to the articles which it should exist in? Surely this is a case of merge at least. The best thing is to get rid of this mess. Polargeo (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is about the terms used in the literature cited. I'm not proposing the terms, just describing them as they are used. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, i agree that this is a synthesis of sources using calling part of the Holocene the Anthropocene, and then taking references adressing the Holocene extinction event and making it into this article. Whatever useful material should either already be in those articles, or be merged. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per Kim and Nom William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Uncle G has shown there are sources.Edward321 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Holocene extinction event. This topic is really a sub-topic of that one, and I tend to think such topics should generally be covered as a subsection of a longer article where possible. While the term does appear to have some use, I don't think it's notable enough (and sufficiently distinguished from Holocene extinction event) to have its own article. Robofish (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - I technically contributed to this article, but only in a very superficial way. My question is if there's a meaningful academic distinction between the Anthroprocene period and the Holocene period, for purposes of a modern extinction (caused by whatever, not just global warming). If there is a distinction, I think the article should stay. If the science makes no distinction, then I think the merge is appropriate. By the way, I agree that this is a subtle AfD in the sense that saying "there are X sources" doesn't resolve the issue. We could kick this around to one of the other million administration boards on WP, or we could resolve it here, or at the least, define whatever the central issue of contention is. I recommend we do that. Shadowjams (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To verify my position. There are sources that use variations of this neologistic term within them. This is different from properly defining the term. When I looked at the article I thought 'Can I write an accurate first three sentences for this article lead using the available sources?' I realised that because the term hasn't been properly defined across the limited sources that I could not and any lead section which I wrote would be a synthesis taking this article and the meaning of the various phrases beyond any of the sources individually. My synthesis would be far more accurate than the current lead section but it would still be my own interpretation of what this term means, hence original research. We cannot have an article on a neologism term that has in no way been defined properly across the sources. As to Holocene or Anthropocene, the mainstream view is that we are still very much in the Holocene and that this is ongoing and until it is widely accepted otherwise the Anthropocene is either not accepted or is within the Holocene. The Anthropocene is a neologism (first coined in 2000) but it is widely recognised and at least defined by several authors (although with widely varying definitions) hence an article on it. The problem with the term 'Anthropocene extinction event' is that it is not a properly defined or widely accepted term across even the very limited sources. Any information which is put into this article will be better placed in other existing artilces in the proper context. Any creation of an article on the term quickly becomes an unavoidable synthesis because we have to define what we mean here by amalgamating several sources. We are therefore unable to report on this in an encyclopedic manner. Polargeo (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Important note about the 2008 Wooldridge paper used as the first reference in the article and cited by UncleG. Firstly it is a discussion paper, this is a new type of paper which goes online for the scientific community to discuss and review prior to it being published as peer-reviewed. It is clear that this paper failed peer-review as the author's final comment on it on 2nd Aug 2008 shows (I have also published online with copernicus but my paper passed peer review so I know the process well). Secondly, Wooldridge mearly uses the phrase and does not explain it anyway. Polargeo (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge/Redirect - How much of this content differs with the Holocene Extinction event article? If Anthroprocene extinction is a newish term for Holocene extinction they should be merged. We should be clear to distinguish if the dispute is over the name or over the article. Despite some peoples AfD philosophy, AfD is about the article, and if these articles are talking about the same thing, then redirect them. Forks invite discrepancies, errors, and create more work. If it's the same content, it should be in the same place. Shadowjams (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The terms are different. The Anthropocene is commonly seen as starting at the Industrial Revolution. The Holocene is far, far longer. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anthropocene (if you accept the term) is currently regarded as being within the Holocene. My problem is that "Anthropocene extinction event" has not been properly defined and does not exist as a phrase in peer reviewed science literature (for good reason as it is very messy to define). Therefore we have a rather poor content fork to a neologistic phrase where we end up dumping a few un-reviewed conference papers and a media interview which often aren't even talking about the same thing and we end up with an unnecessary synthesis. Polargeo (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All valuable matters to discuss in an interesting encyclopaedia article Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I see no consensus; more discussion is needed. Re-list? Bearian (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus equals keep Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge to Holocene extinction event. Discuss any scientific dispute there. Lady  of  Shalott  03:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  03:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Holocene extinction event with redirect. In the event that more sources, besides the one paper, are found, or the topic becomes more significant, the article can always be split out again, no worse for wear. --Gimme danger (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Holocene extinction event. I'm strongly of the view that these are one subject, and it's a great deal less confusing for end-users (as well as being much easier to police) if material about one subject is kept together in one place that interested editors can watchlist.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Holocene extinction event with a redirect. It's already mentioned there, there can only be one 'sixth' such event and that's the Holocene event. At the moment I see no rationale for a separate article - if in time this becomes a scientifically accepted label for an even separate from the Holocene extinction event, that will be the time for a separate article. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep there's a significant number of relevant citations for this term, and the timescales are different for the two extinction events. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be your second !vote. Polargeo (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per the above comments. -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge obviously. AJL is a known POV pushing wikilawyer. The fact that he insists that these things go through AfD even though AfD is not for merger discussions is beyond comprehension. -Atmoz (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please avoid ad hominem attacks. 'Merge' was a minority opinion until AfD relisted. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * changing my opinion to merge and turn to redirect, as although mentioned the concept is not significantly different. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Time to put this 'Anthropocene is a neologism' argument to sleep. "In 2002, Paul Crutzen, the Nobel Prize–winning chemist, suggested that we had left the Holocene and had entered a new Epoch—the Anthropocene—because of the global environmental effects of increased human population and economic development. The term has entered the geological literature informally (e.g., Steffen et al., 2004; Syvitski et al., 2005; Crossland, 2005; Andersson et al., 2005) to denote the contemporary global environment dominated by human activity. Geological Society of America, in a Google scholar search for Anthropocene and extinction which gets 382 hits (1,940 for Anthropocene). The word Anthropocene is defined by extinction events, so the title may be a minor but unavoidable redundancy, which would explain the low number of hits for the exact phrase. In no way are Holocene and Anthropocene synonymous, nor is the latter a subheading of the former. Anarchangel (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anarchangel you miss the point the argument is not 'Anthropocene' is a neologism it is 'Anthropocene extinction event' is a neologistic phrase. It has not appeared in a single peer-reviewed scientific paper and all human influenced extinction including anthropocene extinction can easily be placed under the Holocene article or other extinction articles at present. I know anthropocene is not a direct subheading of holocene but majority scientific opinion puts it firmly in the holocene therefore information on 'anthropocene extinction' can fit perfectly well into the holocene article or the Anthropocene article or even Extinction_risk_from_global_warming. This is a scientific split to a new article on a named extinction processes that we are making on wikipedia long before there is any justification or precedent in the peer-reviewed literature to make such a split. Polargeo (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Essentially nothing you say changes the fact that this is a content fork. Partly from Anthropocene and partly from Holocene extinction event. It makes it look as if there is some new scientifically recognised 'EVENT' but in fact we are defining this event here on wikipedia and synthesising (as I have mentioned many times above). There is no peer-reviewed source that mentions it and no collection of non-peer reviewed sources that agree on what this 'event' actually means. When did it start, 8000 years ago or 50 years ago? Has it even started yet? Can we call it an event? What is its cause, hunting, habitat destruction, farming, pollution, global warming, homogenization through global travel? Is it truly separable from Holocene extinction? (This is very very different from the separation of the word Anthropocene from Holocene) This is one completely unecessary content fork and will end up as speculation on wikipedia when we do not have any proper sources on it. This is science, let us take the lead from the scientists and not do things the other way around by synthesising this stuff under a new heading when the scientists are so careful not to. Polargeo (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Polargeo, I commend to your attention the essay WP:BLUDGEON. Not at all for the number of times that you have responded to editors here, as I believe that it furthers discussion to respond to others' comments, but for the sometimes cursory and dismissive yet SOAPBOX way that you have done so, e.g. responding to, "sufficient sources. I have no objection to a better title, but it is time to bring this material together into an article" with, "Why is it time to 'bring this material together' under a neologism when nobody has even attempted to add it properly to the articles which it should exist in? Surely this is a case of merge at least. The best thing is to get rid of this mess."
 * Good grief. Had not seen this. "If this current addition is not a potential WP:POVFORK and an attempt to promote the neologistic phrase 'Anthropocene extinction event' for environmentalist propaganda reasons then I don't know what it is. This is unfortunately what User:Andrewjlockley is using wikipedia for." This is less a matter for quoting AGF than it is WP:TRUTH Anarchangel (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a content fork. The definition on WP:Content forking: "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject". The article immediately takes up the subject of PoV forks, only going back to the subject in the paragraph-long section "Accidental duplicate articles".
 * Trust me, I am more than aware of your attempt to require the entire phrase to be not only the focus of scientific research, but to be found intact in its entirety as a search term. This could potentially be the subject of a discussion on the talk page of a change in title, but is not a reason for deleting the article, so I ignored it.
 * Peer review, as Andrewjlockley pointed out, is not a requirement of articles. WP:N requires only reliable sources: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
 * Re: "When did it start..?" etc, the answers to your questions are what should constitute the content of Anthropocene, and as the rights to them are currently usurped by Holocene extinction event, they can be found in that article, if not ''Anthropocene...". My merest middling search, above, has revealed that it is a seven-year-old area of scientific enquiry.
 * Only eleven google scholar hits for the exact phrase, "Holocene extinction event". All Holocene extinction events are either Quaternary extinction events or Anthropocene events; if anything, we should be discussing merging Holocene extinction event into those articles, not the other way around. "These extinctions, occurring near the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary, are sometimes referred to as the Quaternary extinction event or Ice Age extinction event. However the Holocene extinction event may be regarded as continuing into the 21st century, depending on whether the Anthropocene is considered as a separate epoch." - Holocene extinction event.
 * The primary trouble with this article is quite obvious, and would seem to be the elephant in the room, as no one has mentioned it; it has next to no content. I will AGF and assume that editors here are wise enough to not cite this as a problem, as it is not a reason for deletion. What AfD does, essentially, is delete the focus of an article. Content and title can be fixed with an RFC, on the talk page, or by WP:BOLDing. Please do not remove the focus of this article from Wikipedia; it is a nine-year old (the article I cited above was mistaken, Crutzen coined the phrase in 2000) area of scientific enquiry.
 * Anarchangel (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If Crutzen coined the phrase in 2000, why are you adding sources from before 2000? From the 60s no less. -Atmoz (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Trilobites began to give evidence of their existence some time ago. It doesn't really matter when someone noticed that they had, for the purposes of saying that they did, does it? Or to put it another way, in an article about a physicist whose recent theory uses one of Newton's Laws to help prove it, citing Newton is not inappropriate, surely? Or to put it another way, the potential for the phrase 'Anthropocene extinction event' has grown since scientists; much of the evidence for it is from the last Ice Age. Should I feel the need to give evidence of the date of the origin of the phrase, I will most certainly be looking for articles from when the phrase originated onwards, as I did for this very AfD, above (the GSA citation). Anarchangel (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No GBooks hits for "anthropocene extinction", one GScholar hit which in fact was for "impending Anthropocene extinction event". 211 Gscholar hits for "holocene extinction" and 166 GBook hits. I'm happy for the Holocene article to be renamed with 'event' dropped. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Original comment self-edited 09:09, 4 August 2009 Polargeo. Q is, is this the only one, or the only one I noticed? The proper format is to strike one's comments, not delete them as whimsy directs. This note added by Anarchangel (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is very unecessary Anarchangel and extremely rude. It is generally regarded as perfectly acceptable to make a quick edit to ones own comment, in this case 3 minutes after my initial edit, when no other editor has even had a chance to add to the discussion. I am disgusted with your wikilawyering. Polargeo (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dougweller that we should perhaps have a more general article 'holocene extinction' droping the 'event'. I also don't believe there is a case for a separate article titled 'Anthropocene extinction' outside of the two articles Anthropocene and 'Holocene extinction' but that is not the present argument which is about getting rid of Anthropocene extinction event, otherwise named Anthropocene mass extinction. Polargeo (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You sure you wouldn't prefer to name it "Holocene", which gets 4,808 hits to "Anthropocene"'s 1,940? Oh, that's right, it's already an article under that name. The point I made was that Anthropocene is not a neologism. Debating over the name of the Holocene extinction event article on its talk page would save all of us here valuable time, whereas if you're trying to make this a contest about which geologic age gets the most Google hits, save yourself some time, it isn't relevant. Anarchangel (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you going on about "anthropocene", when the issue at hand is "anthropocene extinction event " (notice the difference). If you look up a bit, you will find that there is extremely little usage (1) of that phrase in the scientific literature, and overwhelming usage of "holocene extinction" - that is the crux of the matter here. Not whether "anthropocene" as a word is used. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That question was already answered by my previous comment.
 * I would like to return to an assertion I made earlier ("In no way are Holocene and Anthropocene synonymous, nor is the latter a subheading of the former", to show some of the reasoning behind it: The ages are defined by extinction events. Of the twelve divisions between ages, ten of them are extinction events. Crutzen did not so much invent the name or concept of the age, as bring it in line with the others. Holocene is a bland assertion that this is the current age; Anthropocene tells you what happened. I repeat this to avert a possible ambush citing of WP:CONTENTFORK by the closer. They are not the same concept, they are not the same content. Holocene defines the age as the most recent, Holo- for 'whole' or complete, ie, 'completing the timeline', or up to the present. I am sure you are all aware of the meaning of 'anthro-'; Anthropocene defines the age as the one in which humans became capable of influencing the environment. Anarchangel (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made the error (the arguments for Anthropocene are compelling) of following the debate over whether Anthropocene or Holocene is a superior designation, which began as an irrelevant argument against my evidence that Anthropocene was not a Neologism. Wikipedia's reason for inclusion and deletion, though, are quite different. Neologism, has been proven incorrect. FORK has been proven incorrect; the new assertion relies on the definition of the word 'appropriate'. Synth has been proven incorrect. These have been the only valid arguments for deletion (valid in the sense of Validity (logic), as in, if it were true, then we should delete). Anarchangel (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not proven anything. You went and made several edits to the article where you interpreted Anthropocene to mean the age of any human influence on the environment. This is a minority interpretation of Anthropocene, which is most commonly taken as from the industrial revolution. As you can see if you wish to put general extinctions into a time category (human induced or otherwise) you would have to put them into Holocene because the definition of Anthropocene is not a firm one. You are defining the term 'Anthropocene extinction event' on wikipedia by synthesis and very effectively proving my point. Polargeo (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge any useful content not violating WP:CRYSTAL] This article does make leaps beyong what is facutally stated in its sources, hence hits OR.  Collect (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2009 (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.