Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Monoculture


 * 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 redirect to Cultural globalization. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  03:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Human Monoculture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Totally fails WP:OPINION, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:MADEUP. A personal reflection on colonialism, largely opinion with lots of odd claims and passages of personal poetic reflection like:"Our current global monoculture, for eyes that perceive light as we do, is visible from what we call outer space. Perhaps our lights are not so bright." And as Medeis and Smurrayinchester have noted, a lot of simply false claims about the Yellowstone supervolcano and other topics. I considered speedying this but as my initial PROD was contested by the article creator I thought I'd seek consensus. Blythwood (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete "Religious extremism has long dominated European and Middle East cultures. Today they are heavily engaged in military conflict defined as the 1,600-year long Crusades.". This is an essay and not even a good one. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Though the term is, occasionally, used, I was unable to find a) a definition that's consistently applied or b) is consistent with this essay. An attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Kleuske (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any difference between the topic of this article and that of Cultural globalization? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Just an essay with no salvageable parts to make into an article. "Our current global monoculture, for eyes that perceive light as we do, is visible from what we call outer space. Perhaps our lights are not so bright." Matt Deres (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comments at the reference desk that Blythwood already linked. Smurrayinchester 13:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete At best, a novel concept constructed by synthesis from other sources rather than a concept which is already published about outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a repository of novel research, it should be merely a regurgitation of existing knowledge.  Good luck to the author on getting this concept published in real, peer-reviewed sources, but Wikipedia shouldn't cover it until other sources have first.  -- Jayron 32 14:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Viennese Waltz 15:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Jayron32 and Kleuske+Matt Deres. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Redirect per 86 Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Author has added links to this article to a number of other articles, mostly in the See also section. Rmhermen (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsalvageable personal essay. Pretty much every sentence is wrong or not even wrong. Joe Roe (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete  A verbatim search of the term shows a paper from 1980, a large number of the remaining results quote this paper, or are polemical items with words like "Manifesto..." in their title. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually the searches for this title linked above that tend to find a high proportion of reliable sources (Google Books and Google Scholar) find plenty of results that are not as you describe. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Monoculture also refers to a farming technique, which most of the scholar hits for "human monoculture" seem to be referring to. Smurrayinchester 07:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly - this is my rationale for not offering a redirect. "Human monoculture" sounds like agriculture. Blythwood (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that the two concepts are not unrelated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They aren't. See Anthropocene.  -- Jayron 32 14:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Cultural globalization. The content here is obviously complete bollocks, but nobody here has addressed the Google Books and Google Scholar results linked in the nomination statement, which show that this is a frequently used name for cultural globalization. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - or Redirect as suggested above (and below). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cultural globalizaion, per ...157 above. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cultural globalization, per 86.17.222.157's findings. Both a GBooks search and a GScholar search show this is a concept often associated with cultural globalizaion and is a plausible search term. --Mark viking (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment' if this is to be made into a redirect (which I do not oppose on principle) the target article should mention the term and have at least some reliable material on it. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is now briefly mentioned in Cultural globalization, with refs verifying. --Mark viking (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - please, blow this up and start over. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Silly - "we know for certain that our next Event will occur with the eruption of super volcano Yellowstone. Its last two eruptions terminated 90% of all life to a depth of 500 meters under the ocean surface of our planet". - redirect to Cultural globalization &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk)  00:14, 23 September 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.