Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biogenetic structuralism


 * 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 redirect to Charles Laughlin. Clear consensus against keeping this as a stand-alone article. More murky where we fall along the delete-redirect-merge spectrum. I'm going to call this a redirect. The article history will still be intact, so if anybody feels the need to mine that for material, they can still do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Biogenetic structuralism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article reads as WP:OR. The term was coined by Charles Laughlin and appears to be little, if at all, used by anyone else. In other news, the article was created and most of its content written by user:Charles D. Laughlin. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've found a reference and short discussion of it in a literature review, Winkelman (1996) PDF page 5. The references in that paper cite two books with Laughlin as lead author, Biogenetic Structuralism, (1974), Columbia University Press; and another one in 1990 from Oxford University Press. Geogene (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable OR per nom - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Charles Laughlin (or some other article mentioning this topic non-trivially), and consider preserving the article (or one of its earlier versions) somewhere outside Wikipedia mainspace. Laughlin and his colleague Eugene G. d'Aquili, who were joint authors of the original book on this theory, both seem to have h-indexes high enough for us standardly to consider them as notable by WP:PROF#1 in a field like anthropology, and Laughlin seems primarily known for this. In fact, the theory seems to have made quite a splash in mid-1970s anthropology but ended up as something with which other academics contrasted their own theories over the next twenty years or so rather than one they adopted themselves. But by now it seems to be regarded as only of historic interest (see this, for instance), and so has not been attracting much interest recently. Even so, it is quite possible (though far from certain) that someone prepared to put in the effort could produce an article acceptable by current Wikipedia standards if they looked hard through late-20th century sources and possibly more recent historical treatments. But unfortunately, this is not it. What we have here is something that would probably be regarded as a model article if Wikipedia standards had developed differently - a reasonably accessible short introduction to the theory by one of its notable originators - and would be usable as a primary source on either Laughlin or the theory if published somewhere sufficiently reliable elsewhere, but definitely does not meet current Wikipedia standards. PWilkinson (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect - what the heck? WP:TNT time. The article on Charles Laughlin could probably have some WP:OPINION content lopped out of it too. Blythwood (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep From PWilkinson's comment I gather that the article's notability isn't questioned. A sufficiently developed theory is inherently notable, even if it's only of historical interest at present. As for the claim that it's original research, I'm not sure what to make of it. Most of the article appears well sourced and even the claims without sources given seem to be potentially sourceable. True, it does read more like an introduction to a volume of papers on the topic rather than a wikipedia article, but we don't delete articles solely based on style, do we? I'll be willing to change my mind if further evidence comes along or if it turns out there's something I'm misunderstanding. Uanfala (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "inherently notable". Notability rests on reliable independent sources. This article has none: all the sources are connected to the person coining the term, and the article was written by him. It's a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a neologism. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I might need to take a look in greater detail, but at first blush I don't see how inherent notability can't apply to academic subjects. True, most of the references given in the article seem to come from proponents of the theory, and that's a shortcoming of the way the article is written, not an indication of its notability. A series of peer-reviewed academic publications do, in my opinion, meet the criteria at WP:INDY even if they're written by academics who work within the framework under discussion. If we want sources that discuss the theory from an outside perspective, has given one above and, given the citation count of Laughlin's publications, I'll be very surprised if we don't find more if we looked. Uanfala (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:INHERENT (as well as WP:INDY) is an essay and not a Wikipedia policy; the relevant policy is WP:NRV which states that "no subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists (...)". Even if some subjects were presumed notable by their mere existence (say, Sun or Human), "Biogenetic structuralism" is a highly technical subject and would likely not trigger such a clause, unless all scientific theories are considered notable by the same token.
 * Peer-reviewed articles only count if they are independent from the subject; but, of course, the problem is to know what "independent" means in the context of specific scientific research since whoever authorities in the domain are usually never independent from each other. The formulation of WP:NFRINGE ("A fringe subject (...) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers.") puts the bar relatively high. Tigraan (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, is this a fringe theory? WP:FRINGE seems to define fringe science quite broadly, only in relation to mainstream science. I'm wondering what exactly is meant by mainstream science and whether this can apply to anthropology. My experience (with linguistics, not anthropology) is that there exist quite a broad spectrum of theoretical approaches that vary in popularity without there being a decent criterion of pinpointing a single one as "the mainstream".  Uanfala (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a large spectrum, see WP:FRINGE/PS (especially the "questionable science" part). The point is that any explanation that the wider community rejects, either because "that's reasonable but I do not believe it" or "It is plainly idiot", is considered fringe, and as such must meet a high standard for inclusion.
 * Are you disputing PWilkinson's claim (above) that this theory has not convinced the scientific community at large? I just assumed he made a fair summary of the debate (I cannot check that myself, lacking the credentials to do so whatsoever). If so, this is definitely a fringe theory. Even if the whole of anthropology was made of fringe theories, the point (in my view) is that theories widely accepted among the relevant community are somewhat validated even in the absence of mainstream sources, while fringe views need more since they lack that support. Tigraan (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too, I'm relying on PWilkinson's summary (and I don't have any credentials either). But what this summary implies, in my opinion, is that the theory isn't a piece of pseudoscience or an approach that has been completely discredited, but simply one that has given way to other approaches. Again, I only have the linguistics scene to compare it with. There, if a given approach (Government and Binding seems to be in a similar situation) has completely been superseded, even by its practitioners, it doesn't mean it's fringe theory now. It's still useful as a way of analysing linguistic data and in some ways may be better that its successors. From PWilkinson's summary, biogenetic structuralism "ended up as something with which other academics contrasted their own theories over the next twenty years or so". This seems to imply the there are plenty of independent (even in the strictest sense) sources out there. On re-reading his comment I realise he doesn't appear to be questioning the notability. Rather, the issue seems to be whether the article is acceptable in its current form. I think it could do with a more neutral recasting but I don't personally think this is a good reason for deleting it. Uanfala (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * On your last point, personal opinion is irrelevant, but policy is and it agrees with you (WP:NOEFFORT: a junk article on a notable topic should not be deleted).
 * However, I think your example is off the mark: it seems to me that biogenetic structuralism was never mainstream and from the start of its existence was criticized by the community as incorrect, not something that had enjoyed significant support was eventually superseded (like Phlogiston or Lamarckism).
 * At any rate, there ought to be some independent sources. A single article in a semi-famous main press newspaper, or a Nature editorial, or another similar source may be enough if it says the theory was acclaimed by others, while more may be needed if it was never really adopted, but at any rate nothing at all (which is the current amount of independent sourcing) is not enough. Tigraan (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Charles Laughlin, as suggested above. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Charles Laughlin. Not enough in-depth coverage to warrant a stand-alone article.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:26, 22 March 2016 (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.