Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Correspondence of the 18th Century Naturalists


 * 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) 00:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Correspondence of the 18th Century Naturalists

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Everything in this article is essentially an essayist commenting on correspondence between noted naturalists. The sourcing supplies some of the quotes from this correspondence, but literally 100% of the other content is the essayist's commenting on these quotes and what they mean. See also the following related AfD. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  03:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I think we should keep this - I think the OR guidelines are way too strict. However, given the guidelines, I regretfully !vote delete.  Sigh!  Could we userfy it or something?  the author has done some interesting work, and while it doesn't fit Wiki, he should be able to take it elsewhere.  David V Houston (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Userification seems good, as an essay of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with possibly usable content. &mdash;innotata 17:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Yes, it has to go, but some of material could possibly be used on the articles on Darwin and the others mentioned. If it is to be deleted the material from each section should be copied to the talk pages of the people involved, asking editors there whether they can make use of the material. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not agree that the rules on OR are too strict, they are there to ensure that we so not have 25,000 articles about Correspondence of the 18th Century Naturalists. This reads like (and most likely is) a term paper. Everyone who writes one would upload thiers if we allowed this. Besides which its not even a good one (Charles Darwin an 18thC natuaralist?). Also the language needs a lot of work, given that none of this is sourced re-wording it will also be OR (and will it reflect the authors intent?).Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2010 (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.