Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of autism 3


 * 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 of the debate was Delete per CSD G4 Karmafist 16:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Neanderthal theory of autism
Previously AfD'd, see
 * Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of autism
 * Articles for deletion/The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum
 * Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum

The gist of previous AfDs seems to be that it is original research. The current version may be somewhat rewritten from earlier versions by the same author.

-- Curps 04:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy deletion, since this one has already been deleted three times. If that was not the right decision (and I see that it was by no means a swiftly reached or full consensus, so there's probably room for argument there), the proper way to deal with that is bringing that up at Deletion review, not by recreating the article repeatedly again under a slightly different name in the hopes that no one notices. -- Captain Disdain 06:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment deletion review sounds like a good idea - the current version of the article does have better sources, but there are large falsifiability issues. Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   09:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs to be debted. It is fair to advance deletion till we reach a consensus on the present form, which is different from the ones before. Prashanthns 11:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The author asserts that the theory is "very popular in the autistic community" and then jumps into original research. 65 hits on Google Scholar, none of them really pertinent. Unless the author proves that the theory has a signifigant number of followers, delete. Pilatus 12:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research it was, and original research it continues to be. Anville 16:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. Karol 17:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete of course; may be speedyable due to continued recreation. However, I note that the article is moving towards a discussion of genetic evidence Neanderthal-human interbreeding, which is a much more scientific topic (right now).  If the author wanted to write an article on Evidence for human-Neanderthal interbreeding, and if that article contained a sentence that said, "the idea that such interbreeding is responsible for autism has some support within the autistic community, although no scientific research yet suggests that this is the case.", then I would consider that a reasonable nod to the "theory" that would be appropriate to WP.  Until such time as the "theory" has any smidgeon of scientific support, however, it does not deserve its own article.  Bikeable 19:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Suggestion. I agree with Bikeable (above). The article could be moved to another wiki. --JWSchmidt 19:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete but this appears to be a treasur that someone just can't live without on Wikipedia. Even if one drives the silver spike of death into it, its sure to resurface again. Stu 20:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I still not only think that it's original research, but that no other minority group would stand for being spoken of in the same way. However, this time around that's all I will say. Jacqui  ★ 21:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. The current article provides four citations to support it: however, the two that are from reputable sources are irrelevant (they concern only the possibility of human-Neanderthal interbreeding, with no reference to autism in any way), and the two that discuss autism are both apparently unpublished original research on personal websites. WP:NOT a soapbox. The authors are welcome to come back when they have some evidence that this theory has any acceptance in any circles whatsoever. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 23:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as re-creation. It is technically re-written, but is substantially the same description of the same theory by (one assumes) the same user or someone in collaboration with him/her, and unquestionably meets the spirit of CSD:G4. MCB 01:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm voting delete too, but to be fair I think I should point out that this is not the same user (I checked) and that this version of the page at least includes a "controversy" section, which the others did not, if I remember correctly. Jacqui  ★ 01:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The mere fact of a theory's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion.  It is clear that someone somewhere has come up with this theory (otherwise there wouldn't have been an article written in the first place) and thus, regardless of whether the theory itself is valid or not, it does exist.  Kurt Weber 01:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Seriously? So if I come up with a theory -- for example, right now, my theory is that people don't always think the full implications of their statement through before making them, which I hereby dub the Theory of People Going Off Half-Cocked -- that means it's notable enough for inclusion? So if I were to actually create the article (or, for the sake of argument, got someone else to do it for me), that would automatically make it notable and a valid addition to Wikipedia, simply because someone thought it up and took the ten minutes to write it down? I must disagree. -- Captain Disdain 02:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Considering how manyh "articles" get written every day around here that are deemed personal essays or original research, I'm going to have to disagree with you. The precise reason why those policies exist is so that we don't waste valuable space discussing a view held by one person or a very small group of people. Jacqui  ★ 15:22, 31 October 2005 (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.