Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic nurture


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  14:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Genetic nurture

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

At best WP:SYN, this monograph was written by a user who was speedily sitebanned due to adding contrarian content to scientific articles. The user also promoted scientific racism, of which this seems to be a subset. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a term that appears to be almost unknown to most geneticists. I would have guessed that the editor who wrote the article had invented it, but I was distressed to see that Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA has article about it. Be that as it may, I don't think Wikipedia should tolerate articles written by sitebanned editors.  Athel cb (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Psychology.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to have been written to give credence to content in another article now at AfD. No indication whatsoever that this is a notable scientific hypothesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete This might not have been picked up by others, but if you look at early versions of the article this is serious copyright violation. Chamaemelum has merely copied word for word the parts of the abstract from certain papers and entire chunks of text from such papers. The copyrighted material was removed by SandyGeorgia but has not been striked for copyright. If you check the diff I provided there is a lot of copyright, but one notable example is half of the abstract of . Chamaemelum was previously told by an admin not to upload copyrighted material because they did it before on the red meat article  but they did obviously not listen. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I also noticed this when I checked the page history. Perhaps best to TNT it. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Chamaemelum is still eager to hide and remove any mention of copyrighted material and warnings from their talk-page . Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * a couple of those articles are CCx4; have you checked all of them for license compatability? (Even if they're all compatible, it's still plagiarism.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep unless the copyio cannot be removed without leaving anything worthwhile. Genetic nurture is not a very common term, perhaps "indirect genetic effects" is better known. (Example: genes causing variation in maternal behavior -or, say, milk composition- that subsequently affect behavior of the offspring, even though the latter may not carry the alleles responsible for these maternal differences). I have no opinion on the quality of the current article, so if other editors here feel that TNT is needed/warranted, that's fine with me. --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I just want to note that this is a mainstream genetics concept and absolutely not a POV fork of anything race related. (Of course, racists will try to use this stuff, as they do with so many other things, but that's another matter). --Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete No reason to have an article about an obscure term when "indirect genetic effects" is more common and better established. Whatever we say about this topic, we should do it starting from scratch with different words and under a different title. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. It gets slightly more hits in Google Scholar that I was expecting but this is still a one-sided article, with no realistic prospect of becoming neutral, about a very minor topic, under an uncommon name. It says nothing about how widely accepted this concept is or whether it has any critics or rivals. We don't want a walled garden of articles accumulating around race and intelligence where material conducive to "scientific racism" can lurk quietly. Insofar as it is a topic, it can be covered in a paragraph or so elsewhere. I'm not really seeing any need for a redirect from this name to that but I guess I don't object to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per . 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  07:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete. Even the keep vote here says that they are fine with a delete. Considering the awful state of this article and the WP:POVFORKing shows that we should just get rid of it. jps (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, this should actually be a G12 for copyvio. Trejo copyright. Trejo copyvio in first version.  Slightly later versions also included copyvio from Wang.  There is no version to revert to here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * (from FTN) Speedy delete as copyvio without prejudice to recreation. Looks like Sandy is right and there is enough copyvio for G12. Aside from that, delete per WP:TNT. But without prejudice to recreation, at the same title, because "genetic nurture" is most certainly a "real thing," a mainstream concept that easily meets WP:GNG, for example 2018 article, 2020 article, 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis, and hundreds more on Google Scholar. (It's not the same thing as "indirect genetic effects," it's a subset, a notable subset subject to scholarly study.) Levivich (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. The term is present in this source, for example, but the description in the article seriously misrepresents the scope of its use. Deckkohl (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete immediately as totally unnecessary. Many articles carry topics that would have told the whole story, and even Punnett squares are enough to determine the outcome of a child. Also, according to Commons, it appears that no permission was granted by checking the name of the file, and just because it's CC doesn't mean you can distribute it freely. Can somebody open up an investigation into the file used in this page as well? Thank you, HarukaAmaranth (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2023 (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.