Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary psychology of rape

Evolutionary psychology of rape was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.

Seems irredeemably non-NPOV. Exploding Boy 15:43, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * What, the title? - David Gerard 16:16, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No, the content. By the way, I didn't post this here, I just voted on it.  Exploding Boy 16:21, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep in present form. I see its had a lot of recent work. Article looks OK to me. Doesn't appear to me to be advocating or condoning rape, but reporting (neutrally?) on theories that attempt to give an adaptive explanation of the persistence of this behavior. Topic is identified as controversial. References are given, including one by David Barash, a name I recognize as that of a respectable mainstream biologist. Unless the article is misrepresenting the content of the references, I don't see a problem. Be better when the "criticisms" section is written. Dpbsmith 16:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is the solution to the prior VfD debate on "sexual origins of rape," I believe.  Consensus there seemed to be that an "Evolutionary psychology of" would satisfy most objections.  As it is reporting on an inherently POV theory but doing so in a neutral manner, I think it should stay, esp. since the article is clear that this is theoretical.  Agreed that an "objections" sect. should be there & will improve it. Geogre 17:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is well written and does not seem particularly non-NPOV to me. Has arguments of both proponents and critics listed. --Costyn 17:59, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - has been much improved. A good example of wikipedia give-and-take. - DavidWBrooks 18:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The outrageousness of a theory, in and of itself, does not mean that an article describing what proponents of that theory believe should necessarily be deleted.  There can be a fine line at times, but I don't believe this crosses it.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a legitimate but controversial theory.  I think there still could be some more NPOV work done to it, as many of the "observations" noted are questioned themselves, but on the whole, well done.  Postdlf 00:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not perfect but never will be. Important that we report this aspect of the debate. Andrewa 06:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)