Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neoteric evolutionary 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 delete. Tone 10:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neoteric evolutionary theory

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

[From comments by

wp:original research." Opening AfD for further investigation and discussion. General Ization ^Talk 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per
WP:NOTESSAY. Not seeing any sources directly discussing this. The closest I could find was two books, firstly this book, which has a chapter on "The rise of neoteric positivism". This doesn't really discuss evolution, it seems to be a defence, or reinvention, of logical positivism. However, our essay article may be looking at evolution from the POV of this philosophical school. The philosophy itself is barely notable, let alone its view (if it actually has one) on evolution. The second book is differential evolution with a chapter on "Neoteric differential evolution". The book is about the algorithms of evolution. It is highly mathematical and does not seem to relate to our article at all. I suspect that the word neoteric is being used here merely in a generic sense of its meaning. It does however, have a passing mention to Darwin in a student question "Does differential evolution obey the natural selection theory of Darwin?" (sorry, I don't know the answer – I make a poor student). SpinningSpark 15:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, as appears to be original research. The articles' references are not germane, and I could not find other literature in support. David notMD (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've read as much of the article as I can manage, but it's almost all waffle. I still have no idea what "Neoteric evolutionary theory" is, why the N should be capitalised, or how it differs from any other theory. I guess "original research" is the most polite way to describe it. Maproom (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 16:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. If this were serious, it would have lots of links from and to other articles on human evolution. -- Nsda (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's simply no real substance under all the fluff. "Neoteric" is just a fancy-shmancy highfalutin way to spell "new". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is (poor) original research from start to finish. None of the cited sources discuss this supposed theory, and I can't find a single instance of the word "Neoteric" being applied to human evolution. The substance of it—apparently an attempt to revive human exceptionalism as a scientific theory—is also extremely
fringey. I'm really surprised that Graeme Bartlett accepted it at AfC. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - original research and no evidence of notability as crackpot theory/fringery. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
psuedo-science and not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as hoax, as original research and possibly also as
bollocks. The Google Books and Scholar links make it clear that this "theory" has never been published under this name. None of the references have "Neoteric" in their names. It is clear that there is no such thing as "Neoteric evolutionary theory", at least not under that name, outside of the mind of the author of this borderline nonsense. Clearly, "Neoteric" is just a way to say "new" with an implied subtext of "I am very clever and I know big words". This embellishment of language with knobs, doodads and ornamental finials continues throughout the "article" and successfully (if that is its intent) defeated my attempts to parse any sense into it. If there is anything here at all, and I'm certainly not saying that there is, then I suspect that it could be condensed down to one or two sentences that actually made sense. It is nice that people have their own theories about evolution and stuff but I feel that Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses has priority here, both in style and in (lack of) substance. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment If you happen to be in the mood for more of the same, an IP (who I suspect to be the author of the article, logged out) left a defense of the article on my Talk page, probably in response to my suggestion on the author's Talk page to participate here. General Ization ^Talk 18:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope that it is the same person. I'd hate to think that there were two of them. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General Ization ^Talk 15:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And the author has just now left comments at Talk:Neoteric evolutionary theory rather than here. I have moved those comments here so they will remain for future reference after the article is deleted. General Ization ^Talk 15:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move for close Since even the author has now, according to the aforementioned comments at
snow close. Thanks to all. General Ization ^Talk 15:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Moved from Talk:Neoteric evolutionary theory

There seems to be a problem - I have failed to communicate the nature of the Neoteric approach to Evolutionary Theory. a) It's a theory b) It's in a Neoteric 'state' - unmentioned, unexplored by evolutionary scientists, paleoanthropologists, etc. c) The 'theory' is a set of conclusions derived directly from their findings however, supported by Darwin's own writings. d) The notion of recall is first mentioned by him (Darwin)as being the prime mover of 'consciousness'. You can look it up. I gave the reference. e) Consciousness underpinned by recall is not found in other species. f) What I call the 'Recall Paradigm' drives human behaviour. g) Human behaviour is characterised by an ability to shape the environment directly. h) So unlike all other species, we don't rely on slow mutational changes to evolve as 'better fitted' to a particular niche. i) Instead of evolving physically, mental evolution ( the Recall Paradigm ) enabled us to leapfrog the entire process. j) The evidence is all around us. Key advances like flint tools (3.3 mya) are the date stamps for the evolution of mind. k) So we can inhabit fabricated niches - like towns, a submarine, space vehicles, New York, a farm, Wikipedia. l) There is nothing new here; the evidence is all around and stretches back millions of years. m) It just needs a little insight to connect all the dots. n) Sorry I've caused you all so much grief. Obviously, you're not ready for all this. 0) The 'mental niche' is uniquely human and expanding exponentially. Pity Wikipedians want to vote the other way. p) In the light of this I think an entry in Wikipedia not relevant any more. q) I too vote delete DeQuinceyMalden (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.