Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uterine succession

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Uterine succession
Hooey or original research or something; the phrase "uterine succession" comes up blank. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to matrilineal succession, and delete all references to nonsense neologism of "uterine succession". There is, after all, no such thing as "testicular succession", but we certainly have patrilineal succession. -- 8^D gab 19:48, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * Upon review of the options, delete - I'm redirecting both matrilineal succession and patrilineal succession to primogeniture. -- 8^D gab 19:52, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Matrilineal succession. Its not usually called uterine succession - every baby comes from a uterus so it's a meaningless title. Megan1967 02:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; no redirect: no Googles at all. I'll change my vote if someone can show any use of this apparent neologism in a serious publication.  The term (and entirely speculative remarks about it) shouldn't be included in primogeniture unless some sources can be cited. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I wrote the article. The name "uterine succession" came as derivation from terminology in sociology, where "uterine kinship" etc refer to kinship in unbroken female line. There, "uterine" and "agnatic" are parallel terms. Upon reflection, I concede that probably "matrilineal succession" would be a better-known title for this information. The information itself is true and I stand behind it, therefore I vote for its KEEPING. As comment to a suggestion above to redirect this to some "primogeniture", that will not be correct, since primogeniture is only one form of succession, and there are a plentitude of other forms, such as seniority, tanistry, election, appointment, rotation... Thus, such redirect will give readers a misleading picture. Regarding such comments, it is desirable that persons who do not know nor have thought through the subject in question, refrain from deleting contributions of others who know the subject better. 62.78.106.215 17:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per the anon's comments, perhaps it would make sense to change the redirects at matrilineal succession and patrilineal succession to point to our article order of succession?  It's a broader article than primogeniture, and covers more flavours of succession.  My vote to delete uterine succession still stands, as the term remains a neologism. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * order of succession is rather long article already, and I think it is yet growing, as certain forms of succession are not equally presented there yet. Thus, I foresee a point where people would like to have a series of sub-articles, and "order of succession" being their synopsis and sort of 'list of contents'. "Matrilineal succession" could well be one of such sub-articles, as already is another thing, "primogeniture". signat:The same "Anon".
 * I think matrilineal succession can easily be worthy of a separate article; but certainly, let's not confuse the issue with primogeniture. One can perfectly well have matrilineal ultimogeniture. - Mustafaa 21:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A quote: "The uterine ancestry of an individual is a person's pure female ancestry, i.e. a matriline leading from a female ancestor to that individual."
 * I also can find no use of this particular phrase. Without verifiable evidence, delete as original research or maybe neologism.  Rossami (talk) 01:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The correct term appears to be matrilineal succession. Do not redirect as there's no evidence that the term uterine succession is actually used.  It appears to be nonsensical and illiterate. Quale 04:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia should not be the vehicle by which this neologism spreads. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - SimonP 23:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.