Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanzee

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 Keep Withdrawal was stated on IRC; also, this looks like a snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanzee

Whilst this article is technically feasible, it is over 90% speculation. Humanzees do not and may possibly never exist, and therefore this is effectively an unworkable article. It violates WP:NOT under Crystal Ball, since it also explains something which does not exist at this time. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article is a part of four projects: placed notice of AFD on all four talk pages.Kww (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. It seems that I have just done exactly the same thing without realising you already had done it. Oops... :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't speculate, it reports on experiments, historical evidence, and the genetic underpinning that drive those studies. It used to be over 98% absolute crap, but I worked pretty hard to get that out. The Ivanov experiments are real. Bedford's experiments with in-vitro hybridization of gibbon eggs with human sperm are real. Oliver is real, even if he isn't a real humanzee. The genetic studies showing the similarities are real, and the genetic evidence of hybridization shortly after the species divergence is also real. Not really existing isn't a guideline under WP:N, it's whether reliable sources have written about it, and they have. The whole cryptozoology project would collapse if articles about mythical and hypothetical species were yanked out from underneath them. Hell, this article even got a visit from User:ScienceApologist and he didn't gut it.
Kww (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per arguments above. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some sections of the article may need to be rewritten to focus more on what secondary sources actually say about the subject directly to move it away from speculation territory (I'm thinking of the "feasibility" section), and the sourcing definitely needs improvement, but this is nothing that can't be fixed by normal editing. AfD is not for article cleanup. An article on this subject that merely covers what scientists have said about it, and historical instances where such hybridization has been attempted or rumored to exist, would be perfectly acceptable in my book. Kww has a done a great job putting it on that path so far.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep a notable subject, speculation on human-ape hybrids is a valid subjest. What the article shouldn't do (and which it used to far too much) is indulge in speculation itself, but even so it's not grounds for deletion. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - As I also stated in in the nom, its a violation of WP:NOT (A Crystal Ball) - Allow me to refer you to Article 3 of that item:

"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Much of what needs to be said already has been. This is a legitimate field of current scientific reseach, even of such a hybrid has not been (definitively) produced yet, and a legitimate field of anthropologic endeavor, to the extent of investigating the possibility of such hybrids early in human history. The article could use some additional clean up, and should not speculate on whether such a hybrid will be produced or confirmed in the future. But the research around whether such a hybrid could occur and whether it once did belongs in this article. Rlendog (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2008 (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.