Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human territory


 * 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 as original research ~ trialsanderrors 09:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Human territory

 * — (View AfD)

del, a good chunk of original reasearch. please suggest in which articles some interesting statistical data may be moved. the text is naive and in many places wrong. For example, humans are not territorial animals. And personal house is not "territory" in this sense, it is "dwelling" or "shelter", which may be part of territory and may be not. I can continue this list, but it is waste of time. `'mikka 20:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Human territory for discussion between nom and author—Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.—Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 09:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly:

"Human beings are territorial animals." is a direct quote from the Oxford encyclopedia”
 * A quote taken out of context and written by a sociologist who sees only a piece of an elephant (who does't know this palabre about five blinds who tried to describe an animal?) and too smart for his own good. Just as well other sociologists like to ponder that "humans are nomadic animals" `'mikka 17:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Secondly: "Territory is the name given to an area that an animal defends as a living space" is another quote from the Oxford encyclopedia. The living space for a person is there dwelling.

Badenoch 10:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, what problem do you have with the page?Badenoch 09:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mikka, Please go to the wikipage called "territory" and under the heading "In psychology" you will find that someone has provided a deffinition from the field of psychology. Please read it. Badenoch 11:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I wil not argue. I may well be wrong as anyone else. Therefore we have voting for deletion here, not just a set of "chief editors" who can just delete pages. Still, the article has no authority with the exception of the part about statistich of housing. "Human territory" here is an unreferenced speculation and overgeneralization. "Dwelling" is a term in its own, treated separately from "territory." `'mikka 17:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research. It is a synthesis of facts to derive a conclusion. -- Whpq 16:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 19:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Whpq. The factual data themselves seem to be sufficiently sourced but the conclusions drawn from them look like OR to me too. —David Eppstein 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Clear case of OR by synthesis, per Whpq. Pete.Hurd 04:30, 17 January 2007 (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.