Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concealed ovulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 2 to July 9 2004, consensus was not reached but there were more otes to keep than to delete. Discussion:

This from cleanup. The article is a personal essay of entirely non-scientific dorm-room bull session thoughts. Not a redirect to Fertility or Reproduction because, frankly, it isn't concealed ovulation, and there is no content in this article worth saving or cleaning. This entry isn't funny, either, unless frustrated adolescent mindsets are funny. Geogre 15:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I thought it was a very valuable article from a certain (neutral) point of view. These are the sort of things Wikipedia has the advantage to differentiate from the more dogmatic encyclopedias. --Lussmu 15:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article may need to be rewritten, but this is a valid topic for an encyclopedia. Zeimusu 15:20, 2004 Jul 2 (UTC)
  • Likewise keep, move back to Cleanup. --Phil | Talk 16:22, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
My vote's in, but how is ovulation "concealed?" First, biologists are suggesting that there's nothing concealed about it, since the woman knows, and, in the state of nature, so would others. Second, it purports intention to biology, which is a very bad idea. Third, we agreed, in Breeding season, generally, that an article on fertility patterns and human fertility/sex is warranted, but this lemma, "Concealed ovulation?" It seems horrible to me. It sounds like a game of hide and seek, with female biology evolving to play males for chumps. Fourth, if the contents were salvagable, it would be one thing, but I think it would be better if someone who teaching Anthropology 101 or secondary school Biology could do a better job starting fresh with a new article. (Sorry for being verbose.) Geogre 16:37, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unsure. It's not encyclopedic as is, but there's lots of good writing and information there, and it's a shame to lose it. Borderline on original research in places, sure, but salvageable IMO. Try cleanup again I guess, but I'm not hopeful, it's the sort of thing that just sits there and ends up back here eventually. Inspired refactoring required! No vote at present. Andrewa 17:48, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've heard of this; it's a real concept. As far as "female biology evolving to play males for chumps", well, that seems to be a pretty accurate summation. Natue, red in tooth and claw, and all that...Anyway, if nobody can write at least a stub on this, delete (I certainly couldn't). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a real topic that was mentioned in a Scientific American article a few years ago. I believe the current content oversteps published thought on the topic by a bit, but the article can be cleaned up. Keep. Rossami 21:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Accurate description of what is covered by author Jared Diamond in either his pulizter-winning Guns, Germs, and Steel, The Third Chimpanzee, and/or Why Is Sex Fun?. Probably also by other authors. Niteowlneils 20:31, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok, I know I've lost the argument, but I do want to be clear that my argument is with the title of the article as much as anything else. I've heard the argument before that human female fertility is obscure as an evolutionary adaptation. Anyone who attributes intelligence to evolution is implying design. I have always agreed that the topic is encyclopedic and worthy of discussion, but this article's rambling screed wasn't scientific, and the title's verb suggests awareness on the part of genetic drift. (BTW, the evolutionary biology can be argued to explain just about anything, but that's my personal gripe. It ends up saying "Whatever is, is right.") Geogre 02:37, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. While the concepts may have some basis, the title is inappropriate, and the content is bad enough that it hardly serves as a foundation for something better. UninvitedCompany 21:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)