Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priorities Of The Human Species


 * 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, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Priorities Of The Human Species
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The contents of this article will never be based in fact. It's an open invitation for discussion on a philosophical question. Hometack (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Established the existence of the subject by writing "Its a very difficult subject to define, but priorities do exist because different amounts of effort and resources are put into different things overall on Earth". Since it exists, the difficulty of defining it (also described on the page) is not a valid reason to delete the page. Please explain why the deletion tag is there and debate in the talk page. BenFRayfield (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research; any attempt to make a list as the original editor is doing is original research by definition. Were such an article to exist, it would need to go back to reliable sources, and probably ultimately to some scientific research, e.g. Maslow's hierarchy of needs. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

All items in the list are Wikipedia pages. That is not original. Some of them are strong common sense, like Basic needs goes at the top. If you must delete anything, delete only those that are not clearly agreed on by almost everyone. BenFRayfield (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is not even set up pretending to be an encyclopedia article. Rather it is an attempt to determine priorities based upon Wikipedian's opinions. That is not what we are here for. Maybe Wikia has an appropriate wiki for such a thing, or you can create one, but this is not the place for it. Lady  of  Shalott  00:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Totally unsourced, no justification at all for this ordering. Seems to be WP:OR. -- BenTels (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with whomever said it is similar to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which has established notability. This, however, is unsourced and it doesn't give any justification or criticism on the alleged theory. Frankly, it seems to me that this is just the opinion of the writer. I would almost suggest a speedy delete for this one. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research, essay, personal opinion, unencylopedic, unreferenced (with no reliable sources available). And on and on and on.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and snow close. The concept is interesting, but like others have said above: this is ultimately one person's personal research on the subject and is comprised of original research. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Even if you are someone that would be considered to be an authority on the subject (which hasn't yet been proven, not that I mean that to be insulting), you cannot simply post your own work on Wikipedia. You must have it published through places that are independent and reliable of you and even then you have to be exceedingly careful about how you add it. If you want to create an article based upon your research, you must show that your research has been covered in reliable and independent sources. They must specifically be about your research and not general coverage of similar things that others are doing. At the very most this title could be used to redirect to the Maslow article, but I want to stress that the research in this article is not to be included in any format. I just think that the title could adequately describe Maslow's hierarchy and be used as a search term.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2012 (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.