Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolescent species
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 delete. Joyous 21:55, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Dicdef and apparent neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I couldn't find a single publication in the web of science or pubmed that uses the phrase, delete--nixie 06:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Agree, apparent neologism. delete. Kappa 09:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. This article is just an excuse to pass judgement on the human species. DaveTheRed 05:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is definitely not an ecological or evolutionary term as its virtually meaningless in those fields. I can't envision anyone using this term for a population during an initial period of exponential growth just after a crash or after a sudden increase in carrying capacity (as is the case in humans). I checked google to see if it might be a legitimate term in pseudoscientific communities, but everything I found was about how humans still had developing ahead in terms of knowledge and technology. Nothing like what is used in the article. --Aranae 08:40, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism - David Gerard 11:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not a recognized term in evolutionary biology. I had thought from the title that it might be a mangled explanation of neoteny, but it isn't even that. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- 'Delete, agree with DaveTheRed Bonus Onus 19:59, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.