Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future evolution of humans

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 of the debate was delete. This might be a valid topic, but the article as it stands does not cite a single credible source and only makes speculative claims. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future evolution of humans

Page is a pointless rant on a confused topic. We already have a transhumanism article AND a human evolution article. This has to go. Graft 16:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm seein' delete in this article's crystal ball. The Deviant 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey! I like this article, and yes right now it sucks major ass, but that what Wikipedia is great for, it will improve! If you don't like the article, just dont look at it. I've only just found it and I hope to do so massive improvements. Now gerrof my land! (...please...) mastodon 17:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There are some elements here that I like, that I don't find in the pages Graft mentioned. It just needs some MAJOR attention. Grandmasterka 17:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hypothesis; how can the author or an editor verify anything written about the future of a random process? A dubious article to use for research purposes. (aeropagitica) 17:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Admittedly, it is interesting, but not encyclopedic. --Bletch 18:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely what wp is not. POV crystal-ball (bad) original-research essay --Doc ^ask? 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research that is unverifiable speculation - a whole hatful of reasons. Sliggy 21:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, not to mention the fact that WP:NOT a pair of crystal WP:BALLS -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May I suggest to Grandmasterka to merge any worthwhile content into transhumanism, human evolution or dysgenics, as applicable? The article addresses interesting sociological issues, but it would benefit from references such as Fisher's work, some of which the dysgenics article provides. I'm happy to help with editing, but I think this one may just have to go. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 03:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not overly attached to this one but wonder if it might be maintained (in greatly altered/reference-expanded form!) under SciFi themes. As I noted on the discussion page, the topic is by its very nature speculative and therefore likely to tempt some to include OR. RJCraig 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. If it were to stay as is then deleting is fine but I think it can be reworked to identify current selective trends especially in non-developed countries. Asteron 21:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would like to see what it could become with some cleanup. James084 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Future evolution of humans

Delete per Thesquire. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay. Nothing in the article now would stand in a proper article. Gazpacho 06:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculative original research. Logophile 07:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculation, however interesting, is not encyclopedic. —simpatico ^hi 07:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOR. --Ter e nc e Ong 07:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with cleanup tags. Widely discussed topic. -- Astrokey44|talk 08:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just someone's essay! Ramanpotential 08:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are significant parts to the article added since it was created: [1] -- Astrokey44|talk 08:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately all of that material appears to be armchair musings. Gazpacho 09:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.