Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution of folded eyelids


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Evolution of folded eyelids

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article - Evolution of folded eyelids - is not notable, Googling this only produces 2 Wikipedia pages (Epicanthic fold and this one) and articles similar to Origin Of Shape Of Asian Eyes Is Still A Mystery To Scientists. Also, the only section header - Myth about double-eyelids, fat, cold - only talks about fat in eyelids, and whether people with thicker skin are warmer than people with thinner skin. It also quotes sources in article text excessively without actually talking about the quote (Let's quote Livescience on the article "Why Did People Become White" on September 1st 2009. "Frostbite was another... [the quote ends and that's it]). I don't know what this article is about and feels a bit like an essay without actually explaining the Evolution of folded eyelids.  Seagull123  Φ  21:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Seagull123  Φ  21:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a famous topic in East Asia whether you are aware of this or not. Also, this is an existing topic anyway whether notable or not. Where is the rule about being notable or anything of such? Also, this is a separate topic which a separate article seemed OK. Most importantly, what exactly is violated? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion Wikibreaking (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On the policy you linked, see numbers 7 and 8; Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed and Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) . There is nothing on a Google search for the "evolution of folded eyelids", but like I've already said, stuff for "articles similar to Origin Of Shape Of Asian Eyes Is Still A Mystery To Scientists". The article currently does not explain about the evolution of folded eyelids but instead talks about the "Myth about double-eyelids, fat, cold in East Asia". Also, articles on Wikipedia must be notable (see WP:N), whether they exist or not is irrelevant. Eg, I exist, but I'm not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If the article was improved to explain the evolution of folded eyelids clearly, with enough reliable sources to make prove its notability, then it would not be eligible for deletion and could possibly be a great wiki article.  Seagull123  Φ  19:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That article is more about the myth than the scientific process. So, change the article title then. As for this topic existing, here is an article. http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/science/kistiscience/95532.html "북방계와 남방계의 모습은 다소 다른데 북방계는 대체로 누런색에 가까운 피부와 몽골주름, 뻣뻣하고 검은 모발, 광대뼈가 솟은 넓적한 얼굴, 많지 않은 체모, 몽골반점 등이 겉으로 드러난다. 반면 남방계는 눈이 크고 쌍꺼풀이 발달했으며 호리호리한 몸매에 팔과 다리 역시 길다." Run a translator on that. It's an existing topic whether famous or not & whether you know of it or not.

Wikibreaking (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep saying its an existing topic,, but being an existing topic, whether famous or not & whether you know of it or not is not enough to be included in Wikipedia; articles must be notable and verifiable by reliable sources. The article you gave, you told me to run a translator, but when I put it into Google Translate (as I don't speak Korean), it gives an article with a title of "Bukbanggye Koreans to find out nambanggye". The article then starts with "In general, foreigners are snapping expression for the Koreans and a flat face with eyes, nose, small mouth speaks. Enters more deeply Koreans are often rated as rough and rude awesome in villages." I have no idea what that source is trying to say. Please try and improve the article to make sure it explains clearly the Evolution of folded eyelids, with references to reliable sources.  Seagull123  Φ  20:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Notable also has the meaning "worthy of notice" other than being "widely known". Since this topic & content is a significant fact, it is worthy of notice.

Wikibreaking (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for several reasons. First off, the eyelid-related content should be discussed on Talk:Epicanthic fold for inclusion in that article. Yes, as WB says, this article is more about the myths, but there's plenty of room in Epicanthic fold for that - including it would expand encyclopedic coverage of that in a single place. (I'm reluctant to just say "merge" as there's not much encyclopedic content to merge, hence my suggestion to discuss on that page's talk.) Secondly though, this article is more of an essay than an article. Up front it is stated that there are claims and myths about the fold, and then proceeds to spend a paragraph or 2 on what the fold is not (not droopy eyelid for example) then branches off to discuss whether fat people are colder, and whether thick skin is better in the cold, wrapping up with a discussion on the term "Mongoloid". The actual "Evolution of folded eyelids" is barely discussed on an encyclopedic level. I suggest to the author to discuss the eyelid-related material at Talk:Epicanthic fold, the Mongoloid related material at Talk:Mongoloid, and the cold weather performance of various body characteristics at... I don't know, Talk:Adaptation perhaps. Crow  Caw  21:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Show me the rule where it says it should be notable as in "widely known & esteemed". Most people are not aware of many facts & topics. Nothing would be written on encyclopedia that way. As for being verifiable, I linked an article on that theory. Run a translator on that quote.

Wikibreaking (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:N; "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." It's not that this topic isn't notable as in widely known and esteemed, it's just not notable (unless that hasnt been proven yet). And the article you have linked to here, I've already run a translator on it and it's totally incomprehensible to me, so if you want us to know what it says, please give us a translation so we can understand it.  Seagull123  Φ  21:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether it is incomprehensible to you or not is your problem. That means you are not qualified to be on this article. Regardless, it's an existing topic of a "significant fact (notable)". Hence, it is a valid topic to be included in encyclopedia. I already gave partial translations like "there is a claim" & so on. That's the content.
 * Also, is the entire translation (as opposed to the brief summary) a rule? Because I've seen other articles on foreign topics where they link foreign websites but they don't really translate the whole contents but just briefly talk about the contents. That part is not even important; there isn't anything important in the content. That part is supposed to only prove an existing topic. (That this kind of claim exists.) The first link basically talks about the theory where "the people living in the cold lose double-eyelids". It's a common myth in East Asia. I introduced existing claims & I introduced relevant scientific facts not matching the claims.
 * If there are more links to be added, that's super. But as for the current links added or such claims existing, I fail to see why such is an issue unless there is some agenda & distortion intended.
 * I've seen many people with agenda to whitewash, distort, conceal, steal, fake & pursue self interest including on Wiki. I like to assume the worst in people. Not saying whether you have an agenda or not. Just saying that I will not assume you to be innocent. Aside from setting that part straight, for the unimportant part just referring to the existence of some claims, why do you need the exact translation words to words instead of a brief summary? Also, if you were claiming that the summary doesn't represent the actual contents, then what makes you think my translation represents the actual contents? Ask someone else for the translation or accept my summary. If my translation is acceptable, then my summary should also be acceptable. (That part is not even important; it is for the sake of proving the existence of such claims.)

Wikibreaking (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if you have reasons to "assume the worst in people", you are supposed not to. If you think WP's policies are broken at a point your valuable input is disregarded, I would suggest that you raise the issue on appropriate pages rather than unilaterally decide not to follow them. If you think your required changes are unlikely to pass, leaving WP alltogether may be a good idea.
 * As for the request for translation, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. A brief summary (which I have yet to see BTW) is not enough to judge whether precise assumptions made by the WP article are specifically written in the newspaper, and whether it is not original research to make them. Tigraan (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I guess the article is supposed to be about prejudice attached to some forms of eyelids but it is not clear at all because of poor writing and sourcing. Those are usually not reasons to delete, but when it is not clear what the topic is, it is hard to fix. (Moreover, the topic itself might not be notable, or be treated better within Epicanthic fold with a redirect).
 * , you are wrong in considering that "worthy of interest" means "notable". This is true in usual English, but it goes against Wikipedia's interpretation of the term as a technical word for "worthy of an article". I would have thought you are a good-faith new editor and kindly encouraged you to read WP:N and WP:GNG, but apparently you already took some heat. Tigraan (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, and do not redirect or merge to Epicanthic fold - because virtually nothing in this article is validly sourced, particularly not for a biology/medical article. The topic of how folded eyelids evolved could be interesting, but this article sheds no light on the subject. It states right up front that there is no scientific information on the subject, and then goes on to list various myths and unproven theories. Wikipedia articles must contain only information that is verified by reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2016 (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.