Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanin theory


 * 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 Keep. Fazbear7891 (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Melanin theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a page about a highly-biased yet not notable theory. It discusses solely about a fringe theory ("an idea or viewpoint held by a small group of supporters" according to its page on WP). Looking at the policy page, "To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia." I don't think the current list of refs support this part of the policy. Fazbear7891 (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep "Melaninism" is a well known and very widely commented upon fringe theory (just click the automatically generated links in "find sources" above, several of which are already cited in the article). The article quite properly explains the views of the "theorists" who promote it, but it is very clear about the mainstream scientific view. Could it be better? Sure. But it's a fairly even-handed account of the topic. Paul B (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep While I disagree that this is a speedy keep, there are sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:V in my opinion. In particular, there are academic sources that examine this as an example of pseudoscience, which suggests notability. ~ RobTalk 22:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep 20 sources, at least some of them are decent, reliable sources. Definitely enough to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The theory is rather disgusting, and decidedly fringe, but even a quick search through any academic database comes up with enough coverage for this to be absolutely clear cut. Start with this set of results. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2015 (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.