Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary psychology of kin selection and family


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology of kin selection and family

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an essay written for a course, a content fork of Evolutionary_psychology and Altruism; it's been abandoned since the end of the course. The references that are given in full do not appear to be secondary sources as required by the WP:GNG. WP:MOS is observed more in breach than observation. Conceivably an article could be written on this topic, but it would be faster to start over. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said when I removed the WP:PROD tag, if you want to start over then you can do it right now rather than wait for a deletion discussion to complete. Much faster that way. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't think User:Stuartyeates wants to do it himself, in which case it won't be faster. In any case, delete as WP:Content fork. Ansh666 01:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see the fact that this is a content fork as a problem -- there is plenty of material available for an extensive article on this subtopic. The problem is that the article as written is not useful to a reader, and contains essentially nothing that would be useful to an editor setting out to create a good article.  I see nothing to gain by keeping this. Looie496 (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I've posted a note about this AfD at Education noticeboard, which is the forum through which I first encountered this article. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed with all above. Moreover, horrible citation format makes the article completely unverifiable, so as already said if somebody was interested in improving it might be faster to start from scratch. Only as a proposal to leave an open for improvement: since most of the article is on inclusive fitness it might be interesting to move such content to a talk page subpage of the inclusive fitness article and linked it from talk page in case anybody finds it useful to work from. --Garrondo (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are probably one or more encyclopedic topics somewhere in there, but it is far from obvious that this is the best title/grouping to put the material under. And it's a badly written student project that isn't worth an extensive revision. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 11 June 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.