Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum genetic diversity hypothesis


 * 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.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 03:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Maximum genetic diversity hypothesis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm not convinced about the notability of this topic, much of the article appears to be novel synthesis from many primary sources. The primary promoter of this theory appears to be a certain Dr. Shi Huang, and it appears to have gained little traction in mainstream scholarly sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I took a look at this a few months ago, when was trying to clean it up. At the time, I didn't see evidence that it had been taken seriously by a substantial community apart from its inventor. Revisiting the topic now, I concur with the nominator that it just hasn't gained enough traction to deserve an article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree. It may be an interesting hypothesis, but it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't read through this thoroughly yet but a lot of the article is original research or defending the hypothesis rather than describing it. The scientist's google scholar page also links to this article as his homepage so I think there's some confusion over what Wikipedia is for.Citing (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looking deeper into it this hypothesis hasn't gained any traction from secondary sources with most citations being linked to the original author somehow and this article is largely original research. I also have concerns about a conflict of interest as the article is also the homepage link on the scientist's Twitter profile and it looks like it was written to promote the hypothesis (e.g. ).Citing (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2020 (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.