Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apeman

Apeman was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 to keep the article.

My 12 yr old got on the computer and made a few edits, including creating this page. IMO its rather POV, and not of much value. If you don't agree it aught to be deleted, thats fine, its not a big deal to me, so long as you know I didn't write it ;) Sam [Spade] 17:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would you like to make it a quick deletion? (delete btw, not that it wasn't a great try, but it's a rather tricky subject :-) ) Hope your stepson gets his own account! :-) Kim Bruning 18:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone thinks a redirect to hominid would be in order. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete also. It serves no purpose at all. Franc28 18:34, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Redir Hominid, if for no other reason than reducing the chance of it getting re-created as an article. Niteowlneils 19:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to hominid is an excellent idea, unless someone writes an article about the Kinks song, and I hope they don't. Geogre 19:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I redirected to Hominid, since that seemed like the best idea to me, in hindsight, and there appeared to be a bit of consensus for that. If you all disagree, undo, redo, or whatever you want to do. :) Sam [Spade] 20:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You know I've had the Kinks song in my head for a few days, so that's the first thing I thought of. If it were more notable I'd almost prefer an article on that to the current redirect, just because I don't think "apeman" is a very scientific term, and isn't generally used for hominids. Perhaps a redirect to missing link (another unscientific term) would be better, but still not ideal? Or a disambiguation page that could mention fictional apemen as well (e.g. Planet of the Apes, Sasquatch, etc.). There actually might be quite a bit to be said on this. -R. fiend 16:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Comment I do think its great that we live in an age where a 12 year old can hop on his father's computer and add an article to an encyclopedia.
Well, if anybodys interested, the boy would prob prefer it not be deleted, and rather redirected or rewritten on some topic or another. He's kinda proud of having created something, even tho I did scold him for it ;) Sam [Spade] 18:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with R. fiend that the redirect shouldn't imply that "apeman" is a scientific term, nor should it obscure the popular uses of the term to refer to Sasquatch and the like. Also, the orginal article correctly noted that there's popular currency for using the term to refer to various stages of human evolution. (I hope I won't be scolded for saying this. Sam, tell your son at least one editor agreed with him to that extent.) I suggest replacing the redirect with a disambiguation along these lines:
- Apeman is a slang term sometimes used for extinct human ancestors popularly thought to be less highly evolved than humans; see hominids. Alternatively, the term may refer to such cryptozoological creatures as Bigfoot or Yeti. JamesMLane 07:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Comment. Since the above discussion and voting, R. fiend has turned the article into a good dab page reflecting these comments. There should be no problem in archiving the discussion and removing from VfD. JamesMLane 19:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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