Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European origin of modern 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   Speedy Delete (G5) by Ironholds - (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

European origin of modern humans
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Earthisalive, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers, and other unorthodox theories. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, topic could be notable or or could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Attention also needed to spelling and grammar. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as article appears to require limited cleanup, mostly in terms of reference formatting and the amount of bibliographic information provided. I don't see anything that can't be repaired. Several Times (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete Lacks notability (WP:N ) and smacks of original research (WP:NOR). Glad to see it was redirected to "Science related deletion discussions", as per the above recommendation.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This cannot be a speedy keep regardless of any problems in the original nom, because someone independent has advanced a delete vote. Kevin (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination.  After a speedy closure, article can then be speedily and properly nominated, if that is actually warranted.  A proper nomination respects the time of the editors being asked to participate at the AfD.  Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD, if the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedy deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SK. As someone other than the nominator has advanced a delete vote, this is not something that can be speedy kept. Kevin (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two other cases, the delete vote can be redacted, or WP:IAR can be invoked over the exception. Procedural closure is appropriate in any case.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly would be the point of closing the debate and then immediatly re-opening a new one? We are not a bureaucracy. If the subject is notable, keep it, else delete it. This is not rocket science. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already responded above, except to note that a bureaucratic nomination is not rationalized by objecting to bureaucracy. Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - Article created by a banned user. So tagged. If a legitimate editor believes the subject is notable and would like to recreate the article, they certainly may do so. Until then, the banned user's work should go. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2011 (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.