Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selfish Brain 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Selfish Brain Theory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotion for a non-notable fringe theory. Damiens .rf 21:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not the place to publish new theories - WP:NOT. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete. Notability not established. JFW &#124; T@lk  15:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This "new theory" isn't being published in Wikipedia first. Did no-one read the article?  Citation four tells us outright that this thesis was first published in Neuroscience &amp; Biobehavioral Reviews, which is peer reviewed, some six and a half years ago.  Original research is stuff that has not gone through the fact checking, peer review, and publication process; not stuff that has. And this "non-notable" subject has been noted in the literature, such as, for example, in Campbell's review of the field of the energetics of the human brain  and Port's discussion of exotoxicity  amongst others. This appears to be another case where "original research" is used incorrectly to label something as "university-level science, the article on which I don't understand because it's written as an academic would write on the subject".  Academic style of writing does not equate to original research.  And given the peer-reviewed nature of the original sources, and the fact that Campbell, Port, Dallman+Hellhammer, and others have noted and acknowledged the contribution to the field in the six years since, this is in no way either original research or non-notable.  This is verifiable, not original research, and noted.  Stylistic problems with the article, such as the unsupported claims about "scientists the world over" and Socratic style inappropriate for reference material, are what cleanup is for. This is a woeful and gross drive-by misapplication of our content policies by all four editors above.  Keep.  Uncle G (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It reads as OR because, for example, in the section that's supposed to explain how it works, it doesn't cite papers on the Selfish Brain Theory, but rather papers that the creators of the SBT might have cited in their papers. We have to use secondary sources. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I already pointed directly to citation four, the original paper by Peters et al. (which is cited by Campbell and others).  It even has "selfish brain" in its title.  Again I ask: Did you simply not read the article? Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It reads as OR because, for example, in the section that's supposed to explain how it works, it doesn't cite papers on the Selfish Brain Theory, but rather papers that the creators of the SBT might have cited in their papers. We have to use secondary sources. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I already pointed directly to citation four, the original paper by Peters et al. (which is cited by Campbell and others).  It even has "selfish brain" in its title.  Again I ask: Did you simply not read the article? Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I already pointed directly to citation four, the original paper by Peters et al. (which is cited by Campbell and others).  It even has "selfish brain" in its title.  Again I ask: Did you simply not read the article? Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Uncle G has demolished the argument for deletion. See Models of the Human Metabolism for yet another source. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – plenty of scholarly sources showing the notability of this theory, also beyond those already cited in the article or listed above by Uncle G. --Lambiam 18:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep really interesting article. Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is notable per sources.Biophys (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2011 (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.