Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporal paradox (paleontology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Kurykh 03:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Temporal paradox (paleontology)
The article is a non-encyclopedic personal essay. The article contains cites, but they do not verify the text. -- See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought (specifically Template:Essay-entry and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day), WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, Template:Citecheck, and possibly Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. -- Writtenonsand 00:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, or Merge any salavageable content to Origin of birds. Seems more of an essay than an article, and the lead sentence "If we imagine that Dromaeosaurids or Troodontids (together called Deinonychosaurs) evolved into Archaeopteryx and then into birds, why do we find such dinosaurs in fossils from after Archaeopteryx and birds evolved?" misses the point of evolution entirely. The fact that there are still many gaps in the fossil record, and the fact that some species with more primitive (or rather, more basal) features survive while more advanced (or derived) species perish is kinda self-evident: there are still fish swimming in the oceans and frogs hopping around in ponds, despite them evolving eons before humans. "The notion of a temporal paradox is based on several fundamental misconceptions about paleontology and evolutionary biology, and by misrepresentation of the evidence" (Prum, R.O. 2002) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Although there are about 14,000 ghits, the ones I've seen have been on blogs and other non-reliable sources. I cannot understand what half of them are talking about. Anyhow, I agree with Firsfron's comment above. - Rjd0060 04:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it and the links to it, possibly the reference in temporal paradox too. It's just a coat rack and a POV fork of Origin of birds. Circeus 04:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No only an essay, but a flawed one too; there's no paradox, as Firsfron explains. The whole thing is balderdash. --victor falk 09:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or merge any non-OR material to Origin of birds..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 14 November 2007 (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.
