Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Test tube humans


 * 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Test tube humans

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

In my opinion, this article, which does not include any reliable sources, is a clear violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The creator disagrees, and removed the prod with the comment, 'this is an important theory all people should know.' By my understanding of WP:CSD, this article is not a candidate for speedy deletion, so here it is for a discussion of its merits. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This is vague, speculative, and unsourced. Reads like WP:OR. Isn't this already covered under In vitro fertilisation? JNW (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the part about test-tube humans living their livespans enclosed under the iron-fisted rule of world-governing computers isn't in In vitro fertilisation. Though I suppose we could add it... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean that hasn't happened already? JNW (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per WP:CRYSTAL and all above. If there's anything that's not WP:NOR and can be sourced, it could be included at In vitro fertilisation. justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, pretty much patent nonsense. WikiScrubber (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Author will someday take some writing classes and publish a short story or a novel. But not here. Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above reasons. Basement12 (T.C) 14:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that I've already supported deletion, I want to pose a hypothetical: Is it possible to construct such an article based on fictional and popular cultural references to this subject, much as this or this  have made their way into widespread vernacular? Might still be nonsense, but I'm wondering if there is enough material in pop culture to support the kind of thing the author seems to have in mind. JNW (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not sure. It might, possibly, be possible to cover this in terms of the ways that this idea has been in used various science fiction films and books- The Matrix springs to my mind, and the creator mentions Brave New World.  But unless other sources have written about this trope- outside of those works of fiction- then a better-written article would still run afoul of WP:OR for being a theory based on the writer's synthesis of unrelated works of fiction. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said. As you describe it, this would still constitute an act of original research. JNW (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I was surprised to see this, as I saw a record in Guinness World Records called Largest Gap Between Test-Tube Births. Also, see, , , etc. Those are reliable sources that demonstrate its notability. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, those articles refer to the In vitro fertilisation stuff. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  17:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOAP. This is patent nonsense. All relevent info is in the IVF article. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 19:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A prediction of the future. The one good thing was the expression: "... many sci-fi writers and normal people" Northwestgnome (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * hello this is the author all that i said was true and the reason why put up the vitro...o well *sighs* look, if u want to argue about this please do it on the discussion page for test tube humans ok??Anole23 (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think we'll continue talking about the deletion on the deletion discussion page, in accordance with Wikipedia practices. That's what the deletion discussion page is for.  -11:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe we can close/delete as per WP:SNOW? Over the course of this discussion the author has been banned twice for personal attacks and getting rid of this discussion might avoid antagonizing them further--WP:RBI. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Any non-speculative scientific information in this article is already covered in the IVF article, in a much more encyclopedic manner, with proper sourcing. Ariel  ♥  Gold  00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:16, 3 September 2008 (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.