Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene McCarthy (biologist)


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Eugene McCarthy (biologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. A man with a blog making ridiculous claims, which have been repeated by a few other blogs and less reliable press sources (we don't e.g. use the Daily Mail as a good source for science). JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Weak delete'. With GS cites of 179, 129, 105, 47, 49, 19, 13.... looks too early yet for WP:Prof. Pop impact might help. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete for a "leading geneticist" he apparently isn't employed by a university, so is an "independent researcher", which in an academic field where you need large financial grants just for basic lab equipment, is a WP:YELLOWFLAG. PZ Myers is right.  The "Monkey Fucking a Pig hypothesis" goes against what we understand about hybridisation whereby closely related species may interbreed, but those more evolutionarily distant cannot because their genes are incompatible.  Paradigm shifts in science are rare and when they do happen they usually go from prescientific ideas to scientific ones, or the new paradigm does not explicitly contradict the previous one adds a level of complexity to it. OUP seem to be uneasy about publishing it and I can see why.  It would be better if he could get his ideas published in a peer reviewed journal first.Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete under WP:BLP1E ("monkey fucking a pig hypothesis"). Just because someone's a crank doesn't make them non-notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * in fact it makes them more notable as cranks are rare and precious. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC).


 * Delete - he's not even wrong, and not even famous as a crackpot. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 16 December 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.