Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary logic

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. Can be userfied on request.  Sandstein  08:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the term 'evolutionary logic' does appear in say google scholar, it does not seem to refer to the notion outlined in the article. Non notable idea. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am finding one or two reviews for the book, but no evidence anyone else is working on the idea. If more reviews can be found, perhaps some of the material could be refactored and moved to an article about the book? Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Perhaps not yet a solid encyclopedia article, restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 08:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify/Draftify -- keep the article around in case anyone wants to take it up but take it out of circulation. Dkendr (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think the actual topic here is better known by the name "evolutionary epistemology". --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Needs more detailed coverage before we can consider an article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Vanamonde93:@SwisterTwister: Please note that the nominator removed the bulk of the text immediately prior to making the nomination. The article as it stood before his arrival is here. I'll refrain from !voting just yet because the subject is a little deep for me. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sammy1339, I took a look, and I am not convinced that even that state of the article is worth preserving. There are three parts to it; one section which is a summary of Modularity of mind, and covered there; another section that could and should be merged to Evolutionary psychology; and the unsourced (and highly confusing!) lede, which does not seem to have any notability. The sections seem, to me, to be quite disparate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I removed that stuff as it had literally nothing to do with the article. It just seemed tacked on for literally no reason. Indeed the 'evolutionary logic of the brain' bit I removed the day it was added. The IP had attempted to add this stuff to Evolution so I looked at his/her contribs, saw this, deleted it and then put this up for deletion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2016 (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.