Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female sexual ornaments


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Female sexual ornaments

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was contributed in good faith as part of an educational assignment but the topic seems to have been selected carelessly. Biological ornaments are a notable topic, but we already have an article on them, I can't find any evidence that female ornamentation is considered a distinctly notable concept in evolutionary biology, and the existing article isn't long enough to justify a content fork. Moreover, for the most part the article isn't actually about sexual ornaments. It has some essay-like background on sexual selection theory and ornamentation, but is effectively a rewrite of physical attractiveness in evolutionary psychology's peculiar "let's pretend human behaviour is no different to lemurs'" style. There's also an overreliance on primary literature and OR issues throughout. I did suggest that some of the content might be salvaged and merged into other articles, but the discussion on the talk page has gone stale and it's been suggested WP:TNT might be a better route. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nom is correct that the article as it stands is not coherent; it strays over the ground covered by multiple articles (WP:CFORK, multiple times) on more or less non-overlapping topics. There may possibly be some minor fragments that might be saved, but the existing articles are better written and better cited in their respective areas than the current article, so frankly there's not much we can do with this other than to delete it. It wasn't necessary and provides no new encyclopedic coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree that this page isn't salvageable. It is so poorly sourced that statements have strayed away from accuracy into the realm of pseudoscience, and a huge amount of work would be needed to bring it back. The problem has undoubtedly arisen at least partly because a citation to an entire book for a particular statement does not attract the sort of checking that one would hope the general wikipedia audience would provide. Also agree that other pages exist that cover the material better. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 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.