Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polyphyletic evolution theories of human races


 * 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. Speedy deletion by User:TomStar81 "G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (Goblin Face) in violation of ban or block" -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Polyphyletic evolution theories of human races

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was originally created as Polygenic evolution theories of human races which was speedy deleted as it covered the existing topic of polygenism. I'm not sure that this was an intentional WP:POVFORK but I don't think it would be appropriate to merge this into polygenism because it will result in a case of WP:UNDUE. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 19:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tchaliburton is posting lies. The page is not a duplication and covers a different topic. As I've pointed out now at least 3 times, evolutionary polygenism or polyphyleticism is not biblical polygenism [which is what 90% of the polygenism page covers]. Paleoresearcher (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's be civil and stick to the facts. See Polygenism to see where evolutionary polygenism is covered. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 22:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is a tiny section and doesn't fit the page which is all about the Bible. Polygenism and polyphyleticism (which is science, not the bible) are different. That section is also completely wrong. Ernst Haeckel is described as a polygenist, when he wasn't: "In a wide sense, the monophyletic opinion is the right one." (Haeckel, 1876:303). And can you stop pretending you care about improving these pages? Your edit history shows you've never contributed, but just delete other peoples content. I noticed you've made plenty of errors regarding the latter and I wasn't the only person to complain. Paleoresearcher (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand per WP:Summary style. I regard the present article as an incomplete split, and an appropriate split given that polygenism article is not primarily about humans. It's not a POV fork:, but the split of a particular topic which has been discussed widely in its own terms.  The question here is how to best handle the material. FWIW, I regard the speedy on the first version as incorrect; I declined the second one. BTW,, there is a difference between disagreements and lies.   DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Polygenism does seem to be mostly about humans; perhaps you mean some other page such as polyphyly? Andrew D. (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable as it's easy to find good sources such as the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. There seems to be a variety of language used to describe such theories such as the candelabra model.  It is amusingly apt if this leads to forking of the topic but any inappropriate splitting should be addressed by merger rather than deletion per WP:PRESERVE and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Andrew D. (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment Checkuser has revealed Paleoresearcher is a sockpuppet and this article was created by editing around a block. Edward321 (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to allow consideration of the sockpuppetry evidence, see Sockpuppet investigations/Goblin Face/Archive. I'm not sure whether this is a WP:CSD case because it's not readily apparent what the original blocked or banned account was.  Sandstein   08:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That investigation says nothing about this topic and the discussion note tells that "commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive". My !vote is based upon the content and external sources and so stands. Andrew D. (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. This AfD should be closed, as the article has been deleted per WP:CSD. -- 120.23.38.47 (talk) 05:25, 7 January 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.