Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death from a Distance and the Birth of a Humane Universe


 * 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. Wizardman 22:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Death from a Distance and the Birth of a Humane Universe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Notability - the article does not state how this is a notable book per Notability (books). rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Brand new book, so no historical significance or influence. No citations in the article to indicate notability, and searching produced no indication of reviews or other coverage from any reliable source. Even the book's own website doesn't mention anything that would satisfy WP:BK. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete: This book brings to a general global readership a potentially revolutionary new theory of human evolution, behavior and history. This theory was originally developed and published in the peer-reviewed specialist professional scholarly literature where it has been widely discussed (about 30 references to such discussions are below). This book is also notable for making this potentially vital theory accessible for the first time to professional scholars across diverse disciplinary boundaries.

References:


 * Boyd, B. (2008). "Art and evolution: Spiegelman's The 'Narrative Corpse'." Philosophy and Literature 32(1): 31-57.
 * Calcott, B. (2008). "The other cooperation problem: generating benefit." Biology & Philosophy 23(2): 179-203.
 * Churchill, S. E., R. G. Franciscus, et al. (2009). "Shanidar 3 Neandertal rib puncture wound and paleolithic weaponry." Journal of Human Evolution 57(2): 163-178.
 * Cleveland, A., A. R. Rocca, et al. (2003). "Throwing behavior and mass distribution of stone selection in tufted Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella)." American Journal of Primatology 61(4): 159-172.
 * de la Torre, I. and R. Mora (2005). "Unmodified lithic material at Olduvai Bed I: manuports or ecofacts?" Journal of Archaeological Science 32(2): 273-285.
 * Fields, C. (2002). "Why do we talk to ourselves?" Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 14(4): 255-272.
 * Fields, C. (2004). "The role of aesthetics in problem solving: some observations and a manifesto." Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 16(1): 41-55.
 * Flinn, M. V., D. C. Geary, et al. (2005). "Ecological dominance, social competition, and coalitionary arms races: Why humans evolved extraordinary intelligence." Evolution and Human Behavior 26(1): 10-46.
 * Gavrilets, S. and A. Vose (2006). "The dynamics of Machiavellian intelligence." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(45): 16823-16828.
 * Gintis, H. (2000). "Strong reciprocity and human sociality." Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(2): 169-179.
 * Gintis, H. (2003). "Solving the puzzle of prosociality." Rationality and Society 15(2): 155-187.
 * Gintis, H., S. Bowles, et al. (2003). "Explaining altruistic behavior in humans." Evolution and Human Behavior 24(3): 153-172.
 * Johnson, J. A., J. Carroll, et al. (2008). "Hierarchy in the Library: Egalitarian Dynamics in Victorian Novels." Evolutionary Psychology 6(4): 715-738.
 * Larson, S. G., W. L. Jungers, et al. (2007). "Homo floresiensis and the evolution of the hominin shoulder." Journal of Human Evolution 53(6): 718-731.
 * Linquist, S. and A. Rosenberg (2007). "The return of the 'Tabula Rasa' (Kim Sterelny, 'Thought in a Hostile World - The Evolution of Human Cognition')." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74(2): 476-497.
 * Mora, R. and I. de la Torre (2005). "Percussion tools in Olduvai Beds I and II (Tanzania): Implications for early human activities." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24(2): 179-192.
 * Okada, D. and P. M. Bingham (2008). "Human uniqueness-self-interest and social cooperation." Journal of Theoretical Biology 253(2): 261-270.
 * Rilling, J. K. (2006). "Human and nonhuman primate brains: Are they allometrically scaled versions of the same design?" Evolutionary Anthropology 15(2): 65-77.
 * Rossano, M. J. (2006). "The religious mind and the evolution of religion." Review of General Psychology 10(4): 346-364.
 * Rossano, M. J. (2007). "Supernaturalizing social life - Religion and the evolution of human cooperation." Human Nature-an Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective 18(3): 272-294.
 * Shea, J. J. (2003). "Neandertals, competition, and the origin of modern human behavior in the Levant." Evolutionary Anthropology 12(4): 173-187.
 * Shea, J. J. (2006). "The origins of lithic projectile point technology: evidence from Africa, the Levant, and Europe." Journal of Archaeological Science 33(6): 823-846.
 * Sripada, C. S. (2005). "Punishment and the strategic structure of moral systems." Biology & Philosophy 20(4): 767-789.
 * Summers, K. (2005). "The evolutionary ecology of despotism." Evolution and Human Behavior 26(1): 106-135.
 * Wang, J., F. Fu, et al. (2009). "Emergence of social cooperation in threshold public goods games with collective risk." Physical Review E 80(1).
 * Whittaker, J. C. and G. McCall (2001). "Handaxe-hurling hominids: An unlikely story." Current Anthropology 42(4): 566-572.
 * Wilson, D. S., D. T. O'Brien, et al. (2009). "Human prosociality from an evolutionary perspective: variation and correlations at a city-wide scale." Evolution and Human Behavior 30(3): 190-200.
 * Wilson, D. S. and E. O. Wilson (2007). "Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology." Quarterly Review of Biology 82(4): 327-348.
 * Wood, J. N., D. D. Glynn, et al. (2007). "The uniquely human capacity to throw evolved from a non-throwing primate: an evolutionary dissociation between action and perception." Biology Letters 3(4): 360-364.
 * Zhu, Q. and G. P. Bingham (2008). "Is hefting to perceive the affordance for throwing a smart perceptual mechanism?" Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance 34(4): 929-943.

SonicANS (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. SonicANS, how on earth do any of your links above demonstrate the notability of this book? &mdash; RHaworth 06:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete lol SonicANS that was pretty epic, but I have to agree with RHaworth. I hate to use another acronym but- WTF? DRosin (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, but the book has to become notable before it gets its own Wikipedia article. There are millions of articles here, and Wikipedia generally has no effect on increasing interest in any particular book.  Mandsford (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete: No historical significance? No citations indicating notability?  It appears to me that the two delete reviews are from individuals who are so entrenched in the existing theories as to be willing to ignore over 30 references, multiple discussions in professional literature and positive endorsements from professors and scholars around the globe in order to limit the spread of information that is well researched and could threaten their long held beliefs.  How can a large body of research and a well grounded theory about the evolution of Humans as a species have "no historical significance".  As for influence, this theory and the underlying research has already influenced several thousand students at the university level, encouraging them to open their minds, question information about the driving forces of our evolution and to build upon (or disprove if appropriate) the various assertions and supporting research of this book.  This the type of influence we need!--Divano62 16:12, 17 December 2009
 * Are you saying that all those articles from 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, etc. made reference to a book that wasn't published until 2009? Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not delete: The book is a recent publication, but has already been hailed by a number of leading scholars in the field for the originality of its thesis and the broadness of its implications. Moreover, the book explicitly articulates the notions of the human knowledge enterprise, on which the very existence of Wikipedia is predicated. Hence, the book has every right to remain as an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightone5188 (talk • contribs) 09:02, December 17, 2009
 * Comment. I would strongly recommend that the "Do not delete" !voters should review Wikipedia's standards for notability, particularly those for books. The article we are discussing is about the book itself, but the arguments and references being given seem to relate to the subject matter that the book discusses. Maybe there is an article that should be written on that subject matter (Human uniqueness question perhaps?), or there might be a place to use this book as a source for some existing article. But a separate article just about the book cannot be justified if there are no reliable sources (which does not include promotion quotes provided by the publisher) discussing the book itself. It is clear that articles written years before the book could not be discussing the book itself as a subject. --RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete: The book should not be deleted because it brings a very thoroughly thoughtout theory about evolution into perspective. The theory is based on many scientific findings and is therefore very credible. If one is to judge credibility based on time lapse of publication, then science can never advance. Furthermore, this book is part of a course that is taught at Stony Brook University which is one of the top 2% of research institutions in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.247.82 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete: This book is a recent publication and it is based on many existing scientific establishments. The author brings a new approach to looking at the human world and it is a theory.There are citations used for all the scientific theories that it incorporates. In addition, the theory has been taught in Stony Brook University for years now, and the scientific community is praising the potential of this theory. It should definitely not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.200.188 (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the authors is a professor at Stony Brook University, so the comments about it being used there presumably mean he is assigning it to his own classes, which is not what is meant when WP:BK refers to a book being "the subject of instruction". Also note that WP:BK calls for the book to be the subject of instruction at multiple institutions, so that one idiosyncratic instructor cannot make a book notable. --RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Paul M. Bingham, which already contains extensive information about this book. (actually, it contains an excess of information about the book--   & a good deal of generally promotional language which I am about to remove.) The book may well become notable, when it gets reviewed. I note it's self-published, but in  this case the author is  clearly notable,  and has published 2 mainstream articles in good journals about the theory, so the book may be one of the rare exceptions.    DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed the self-publishing as well, but did not mention it precisely because the exception appears to apply. A redirect isn't entirely implausible, but 1) as a search term the title is awfully long (perhaps not a big deal but it seems odd) and 2) the redirect would need to be watched to prevent reversion to the full article, because the influx of inexperienced !voters making similar arguments here suggests a particular effort to promote this book by having a WP article on it. --RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * see my comments on his bio article, which I have now partially rewritten and considerably shortened--much of it seems to have been written by his students. (I still need to look for citations to his earlier and current work, and will add them.) I will certainly watch for inappropriate additions. Academics are no more immune to self-promotion than anyone else.    DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Paul M. Bingham. Thank you for all the comments.  Those made by RL0919 and DGG have been particularly informative and I agree with their arguments and suggestions.  There's been a misunderstanding with the notability requirements and I apologize for my ignorance in that regard.  This has been a good learning experience for me and I hope to make more thoughtful contributions to Wikipedia in the future. SonicANS (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect - the author seems to be notable, but this book does not appear to satisfy the notability guidelines for books. A redirect could be in order; otherwise, I guess deletion would be appropriate.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  16:46, 21 December 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.