Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postbiological evolution


 * 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. Tone 13:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Postbiological evolution

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This entire article looks like an original research essay with WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE claims. There does not seem like there is much content that belongs in Wikipedia in the article, and it does not seem salvageable by normal editing means. jps (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Most of the validly sourcable material here is already covered at Transhumanism and related pages; it is telling that virtually every reference is located in the "Ethics" section, for which the little "see also: Transhumanism" seems to have been repurposed as "duplicating". What should be the meat of the article - all the sweeping claims above that - is pure, unsourced OR and synthesis. This is blog material. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the references were inserted badly in 2010 and other editors erroneously turned them into further reading. The entire section that you object to was in fact added later by one person.  Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  is about this in relation to the Fermi paradox, and it isn't about the evolution of humans at all. The original article (Special:PermaLink/356793374) was mainly about that.  Ćirković mentions Steven J. Dick and the article originally cited  and an early paper by Ćirković as two of its several references. The problem is that the article has since gone through, and been badly transformed from what was actually not an atrocious start on explaining the ideas of Dick and Ćirković.  It needs some of the rubbish tacked-on sections to be removed, but with them gone seems not to be original research by a Wikipedia editor, but an encyclopaedia article about an astrobiological subject documented by experts in the field in need of more footnotes some rewriting in light of the newer sources than existed in 2010 and cleanup.  Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing suggests that this kind of speculation merits more than a mention in some other article, like Fermi paradox, and the text is so OR-ful and essay-like that merging, even selectively, would be a bad idea. The original article referred to above is still bad, taking a third-hand understanding of Landauer's principle as deep cosmological truth. (It also kicks off with The dictionary definition of Evolution is any process of formation, growth or development. This isn't an encyclopedia article; it's a school report that somebody put off until the last minute.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete nevertheless. I am aware that much of the article has been cut down; I see nothing worth saving in the remainder, per XOR'easter. Cultural evolution and astrobiology are both real and quite separate fields, but neither of them really discuss this seriously. The article is just transhumanist fantasy with some science terms sprinkled on it. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is completely a WP:OR essay with WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE claims. I realize the editor put a lot of work into the article, but it cannot be salvaged because is pseudoscience. I don't see any experimental science supporting the material contained in the article. It is an ideologically driven article and not a science article. Frankly, it reads like science fiction and not an encyclopedia article.Knox490 (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but stubify (keep the lead). The concept is likely notable, but the article has only two inline references, both to books and not citing page numbers, so effectively nothing it in can be easily verified. As such, it may well be WP:OR, hence, given the concerns raised, WP:TNT applies - but the lead could be kept, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is completely a WP:OR essay with WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE claims. I realize the editor put a lot of work into the article, but it cannot be salvaged because is pseudoscience. I don't see any experimental science supporting the material contained in the article. It is an ideologically driven article and not a science article. Frankly, it reads like science fiction and not an encyclopedia article.Knox490 (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but stubify (keep the lead). The concept is likely notable, but the article has only two inline references, both to books and not citing page numbers, so effectively nothing it in can be easily verified. As such, it may well be WP:OR, hence, given the concerns raised, WP:TNT applies - but the lead could be kept, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:09, 28 August 2019 (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.