RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Holocene Extinction

Holocene Extinction | Result: Moved back to draftspace

Holocene Extinction (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. This article should have never been moved from draftspace, as it's just really bad and misleading in its current state. Firstly, the article uncritically promotes the "humans caused extinction of Pleistocene megafauna" hypothesis, something that has been called into serious question by more recent research ([1], [2], [3], etc.). Furthermore, the article is full of lists that don't even provide any information. This article is woefully incomplete and misleading and a good article on the topic would have to start from scratch. Plutocow (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
2. Delete but move back to draft space. Vee (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
3. It has Just Nine references with a lot of the page being lists ←§ Edward the eight (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
4. Delete or move back to draft. Bongolian (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
5. Return to draft. Not all of the references in the article are great; 2 is written by a birdwatcher who also has articles on zoology, history, languages, and psychology for the site (why not go back to his sources?), 7 redirects me to the website homepage, and while the source for the sentence "Plankton and soil mesofauna/microfauna are also threatened by human activity, as toxic materials that leak into their environments spell disastrous results for them" looks to be a journal, searching the article for the terms "toxic" and "disastrous" returned no results, while a search for "human" gave 1 result: "the structure of the soil communities strongly depends not only on the natural soil forming factors but also on human activities (agriculture, forestry, urbanization) and determines the shape of our landscapes, in terms of healthy or contaminated, pristine or degraded soils", which does not seem to support our article's claim (maybe there's more to it, but I don't have time to read the whole thing through). Altogether does paint a picture of incomplete or misleading. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
6. Send it back to draft and let it ferment for a while. It has potential but needs a lot of work. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep

1. Return it to draft space or improve it.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Goat

1. I'm not sure... I'm usually against sending problematic articles back to draft space or essay space, but since the author of this one is still active and the subject is really important to our mission, I think we might give them a chance to work on this one before deleting the whole thing. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
2. i think this article might be worth something. it just needs to be fixed. you don't necessarily need to move it to draft space to do that. The G (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)