Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Initial Bipedalism


 * 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   speedy delete. G5 speedy, only edits are by a sockpuppet. Should have been filed as such, and not at AFD. Courcelles 20:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Initial Bipedalism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Chemistryfan, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, the topic could be notable or or could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination.  After a speedy closure, article can then be speedily and properly nominated, if that is actually warranted.  A proper nomination respects the time of the editors being asked to participate at the AfD.  Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD.  If the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedy deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a reason for deletion, agree with Colonel Warden. Biophys (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2011 (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.