Talk:Homo heidelbergensis

	This Evolution related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes My judgment & the criteria say this article deserves at least the copper brainstar. I think a slightly thicker introduction paragraph, some more links, and more and better-positioned references would get this up to bronze. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Boring pointless stub with added lame joke. This does not mission. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.161.24.207 / talk / contribs}

Indeed, and the writing is absolutely horrendous. Still, better to have the article and rewrite. Blue (pester) 21:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This does mission, actually. Keep. ^pathetic 21:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, keep unless we make an entire big article on hominins. I'll make a vote. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What should we do with this article?

Delete this article

1. Boring pointless stub with added lame joke. This does not mission. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.161.24.207 / talk / contribs}
2. We have long accepted that we don't do articles that are better covered on WP unless we can add an RW slant to them. I don't really see what we can add to this. But hey, go ahead and prove me wrong. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite/expand

1. This does mission, actually. Keep. ^pathetic 21:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Ditto, keep unless we make an entire big article on hominins. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Keep, or consider some sort of hominid article for all of these sub-groups that might not warrant a full article on their own. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 22:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
4. What they said. Тy^talk 22:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
5. What Ty said. Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 22:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
6. Blue (pester) 23:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
7. I don't understand the complaint. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion - it's a reason for expansion.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
8. I've improved the article and I'm sure it's now worth keeping. God is Lord (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No

1. --79.37.135.47 (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Goat

• We have so many articles these days. You guys need to cool down and stop spending so much time writing stuff. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Whatevs. Sam ^Tally-ho! 22:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If this is deleted it's unclear where the information in the article should go. Homo heidelbergensis looks like the ancestor of both Neanderthals and modern humans so doesn't belong exclusively on a page for either. God is Lord (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)