Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Imprinting

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. - Mailer Diablo 07:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Imprinting

Article violates WP:NOR, and serves as vanity page for user's thesis concept. -- Merope 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, pretty obvious WP:VAIN violation, but most importantly, the fact that this is wholly "verified" by the originator's would strongly suggest that this is a neologism.--Isotope23 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The critics need to attack the argument not the messenger. Is the world still flat? Elsiemobbs

• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"It is well known that young beavers often fall asleeep while sucking on the mother's teat. This hand reared beaver, Fritz, also liked to fall asleep holding a teat, in this case that of his nursing bottle" Konrad Lorenz et al, The Year of the Greylag Goose, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, NY 1979. Fritz is shown in the photo as sucking itself to sleep on a teat detached from its bottle. Konrad Lorenz was searching for visual mammalian (and human) imprinting but he overlooked the more important function of mammals, many of whom are born blind, to survive by finding and maintaining a physical oral and tactile sense connection to the teat. Human Imprinting should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Elsie Mobbs—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.24.85 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom, WP:OR, WP:VAIN. wikipediatrix 00:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, definitely WP:OR, etc --- Deville (Talk) 03:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The evidence for human imprinting has been circulated for the last two decades and also accepted by one of the world's major universities. An intellectual criticism of it would be appreciated but not just a mindless delete request. Human Imprinting should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Elsie Mobbs

Comment Wikipedia is not a peer review journal. -- Whpq 11:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Human Imprinting", "Mammalian Imprinting" and "teat preference" can be found on Google, Yahoo and MSN searches (other authors use these terms too) and "Human Imprinting" has already been presented in a peer review journal. It was first presented to a Nursing Mothers Assoc of Australia (La Leche League, USA equivalent) meeting in the 1970's with a request that it not be referenced until the peer review journal publication and thesis submission, which eventually took place. "Human Imprinting" is referenced in the leading medical textbook on lactation. It has been presented at a number of medical conferences over the last couple of decades. It is hardly a case of WP:OR or WP:VAIN! Human Imprinting should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'll be off the internet for a couple of days so I'm looking forward to other discussion contributions when I return. Elsie Mobbs

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.