Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ape is a Punished Man


 * 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. It is abundantly clear that that this isn't appropriate article content. WP:SNOW. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ape is a Punished Man

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An original theory essay, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOTESSAY. (Please note that it is incomplete in its current form; I had to remove a large chunk for WP:COPYVIO reason.) Nat Gertler (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; original research essay, as suggested by the title. I seconded the prod, and figured the trip to AfD was inevitable. JNW (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; it's an essay, and not the good kind of essay, and it has no place here. I can't put it better than Nat Gertler. bobrayner (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  05:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the above reasons, plus being unverifiable. But this sounds like a great name for band!  I call dibs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Respected Nat Gertler got it completely right, not salvageable. Snow seems to be in the air. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia doesn't host essays. -- Neil N  talk to me  15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOTESSAY. This is an essay, and is original research. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOTESSAY. -- 101.119.14.213 (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

''Note: User:Nannadeem, who appears to be the editor who originally pasted this material into the AfD discussion, appears to be a novice to the ways of AfD. The pasting of this material appears to be a blatant keep !vote, and should be kept in here in order to reflect both that stance and his arguments for it, particularly given the lack of other editors advancing that stance, both for the argument it makes and for keeping that article in public view should the article be ultimately deleted. I have removed from his pasting my own responses that were on the talk page, which are not needed to assert his views.'' --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Copy + pest of  Article’s talk page

would pose the partiality of WP administrators dealing with Article’s engineered deletion -
 * Article Ape is a Punished Man is not an original theory rather it is a collection of facts already available on social and print media. Article shows its sources properly. Watching this information on WP would make it a tool in an encyclopedic nutshell. Therefore, it shall not harm to WP, instead this will establish neutrality of WP.


 * Format style should not be a criteria for deletion purpose. Its style beautification is requested so as to make it more attractive for comprehension and reference for both side's readers i.e. evolutionist and creationist based on religion. Writer has his firm belief in Science and states in personal capacity that "it is not a religion, in fact, which contradicts fundamentals of Science". Nannadeem (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Having been Hurt
 * Respected Admin. Thanks for your criticism on my Article. I have improved the contents of paragraph in light of your pointing and deleted un-necessary phrase (s). The purpose of human fossil ref was to show existence of man. However, it is just a claim like other fossils discovery and not a law.


 * Your deletion of chromosomal contents from Chromosomal Discussion Section is highly regretted, as these were free and there is no question of copy right violation. See their general permission. It appears that it is a calculated design to make the Article unacceptable. Having been hurt, I thank you Sir/Ms.


 * Of course, man is the finest of all creations with reference to energy, matter and livings things. If you suggest something else, then please guide me.


 * In response to your point for my substantial belief in the theory, it is submitted that belief concerns to truth not to theory, e.g. there was my grandfather and his grandfather…, inspite the fact that I have not seen, but it is my belief that he/they was/were. When a hypothesis has been proved by consistent results of many experiments, then it becomes a theory. A good theory tends to explain the broad facts or generalization.


 * As we all cannot make a man from ape or an ape from man so all discussion on both the concepts would remain theories in the broad sense. So for the subject of man’s punishment and its transformation to an ape has route concept as Darwin also gave similar example and in his book “the Origin of Species” for instance, said that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales. Ref. P.184, Ist Ed. Harvard University Press, 1964.


 * In view of my above submission, I request you to please do not submit this Article for deletion and remove your PROD template. I would welcome your further instructions for improvement of my Article. Thanks again.Nannadeem (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to remove the PROD yourself, as any editor is (and as you probably should, as you clearly contest it.) However, I will indeed list the articles at Articles For Deletion, which does not mean that the article will be automatically deleted. Rather, it opens a discussion on whether the article should be deleted, one which other members of the community are free to join in.


 * As for the question of copyright infringement, there is a clear claim of copyright on the source of the text. While that page does make a statement allowing for free use under certain conditions, those conditions are outside of those acceptable to Wikipedia (most obviously, the condition that "alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden"; you can see the conflict with this at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.165.239 (talk)

Replies from editor/user Nannadeem (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Unverifiable – it is just a blame. We all know that man’s common ancestor is till disputed and link has since long been traced by evolutionists.

What is an Essay? Could not you all admins give its skeleton, so that I could be able in avoiding such Style for my future editing on WP.

The concept of transformation from animal to animal had already been mentioned by respected Darwin himself for detail, please see contents of Article’s talk page. What a criteria of intellects, please see yourself/selves. Evolutionist’s view is being promoted while view point of naturalist on WP is being denied. Is not this established partiality on WP’s neutrality. This is not the fault of WP itself, but it is an accumulated credit which needs to be distributed amongst admins just endorsing the delete, delete as a fashion.

Religion based references have been placed, thus Article cannot be termed as un-sourced, derived  from print media, URLs.

See the universal truth: Nothing is new and cannot be new, the things which we mark as new, in fact is a combination of things already existed (plz recall matter & energy neither can be created nor destroyed). So am not a creator, so blame of original research may please be reviewed. After this written speech, I request all of you to insert “keep”  in place of delete. Thanks again and again.Nannadeem (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2013 (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.