Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Evolution in Humans


 * 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 Userfy (Userfication). J04n(talk page) 14:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Cultural Evolution in Humans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While well-sourced, this article reads like a non-encyclopedic report or essay, and does not meet criteria for inclusion. dci &#124;  TALK   00:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 *  Keep Userfy. A few edits are still being made on the mentioned page to improve it. As a page based on scientific origins theories, it's tone is meant to incorporate the validity associated with such theories without having listed all the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origins3F03 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. This looks like a paper submitted to an academic course which was copied wholesale into Wikipedia without having been adapted to encyclopedia style. Maybe it is possible to adapt the paper into encyclopedic style, but, if so, it needs to be done. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominating this article 7 minutes after creation, 7 minutes after the article creator registered as an editor, is far too soon. Please don't bite the newcomers; it would have been preferable to tag the article or better yet, send the editor a message explaining the problem. That said, I agree with Metropolitan90 that the article needs to be converted to an encyclopedic tone and format. The other major challenge with this article is that there is already a highly developed article on Sociocultural evolution and indeed a whole category of articles on this topic at Category:Sociocultural evolution. Given the explicit comparison in the article of biological and cultural evolution, Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology would seem to be related at well. Are the topics in this article already covered in these other articles, and how does this article fit in the context of all the others? --Mark viking (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you for your feedback. This is our first page and we are trying to learn the proper formatting and will try to adjust the tone and format if given the time. We have taken a look at the Sociocultural pages as well as pages on Observational Learning. The topics covered in this paper are unique as they focus on the importance of culture in human evolution. We do understand few of the topics on the page such as neolithic revolution have been covered and do plan on providing hyperlinks to such sources. These pages however do not discus the evolutionary importance and our focus is to expand upon that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origins3F03 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you plan to edit this article significantly and want more time to do so, I suggest you request that the article be userfied -- that is, moved out of the main encyclopedia and into your userspace. You can then devote, basically, as much time as you need to improving the article before bringing it back to the main encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I have made the request above.
 * Comment. Other articles on similar topics include: Memetics and Dual_inheritance_theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.54.239 (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with userfying. This has potential, but needs some work before we put it on display.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with userfying. This article does have potential, but it is way too narrow focusing on a few ideas and models in the literature. The article [Sociocultural evolution]] is not too good as it stands either.  This is a difficult area to write an adequate article on. In this case, the emphasis on Nakahashi's, W. 2010 models seems odd, when, for example, Boyd R. & Richerson P.J. have published many more articles and books over the years.  Right now it comes across as WP:POV and WP:OR, but I think it can be turned into an article.  There are other approaches, which at least should be mentioned.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy This is the best option at this point. It protects the article from deletion and gives the creator a chance to improve presentation and to incorporate some of good advice given by other editors. --Mark viking (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy - there definitely seems to be information worth preserving here.--Staberinde (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Userfy The creator has expressed an interest in improving the article. Since they're a new editor and likely not familiar with AfC and so much work has been done that userfying seems like a good option. A reassessment can be done by a reviewer at a later date. Mkdw talk 09:16, 17 February 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.