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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 06:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Afd. unsigned, added by user User:RN

"The theory has not yet been accepted by scientists or published in scientific journals." In other words, this is original research, which contradicts the policy of Wikipedia:No original research (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a scientific journal). -- Curps 03:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, I was not aware that there had been a prior Afd (under a slightly different article title) that ended two weeks ago. -- Curps 04:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the author of this article has written in the article talk page: I will save a copy of this article before the decision to delete, and reintroduce it again at a later date in case it gets deleted. --Woggly 08:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course. I will reintroduce it as the results of the Aspie-quiz are published in a peer-reviewed journal. --Rdos 13:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it will be speedy deleted, and I will smile. Might I suggest you review WP:POINT? But, then, since you've already proudly announced your intention to break Wikipedia policy if you don't get your way, I'm not sure what good reading it will do. Lord Bob 14:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will not break Wikipedia policy. If I reintroduce an article that cannot be considered original research, because it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it cannot be deleted or speedy deleted. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP policy. Besides, the decision to launch a new AfD on this article only two weeks after the first one was closed, clearly is a violation of policy. Somebody that is good at statistics probably can confirm that if you AfD an article every three weeks, it will inevitably be deleted sooner or later. --Rdos 14:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very simple. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, synthesis of an original theory developed (but not tested or published) by the articles primary contributor.--nixie 03:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see the talk page too. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because every autism related article is terribly biased and this article is the *only* alternative model that doesn't define autism as a disorder --Rdos 04:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research/personal essay - Nunh-huh 04:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "The theory has not yet been accepted by scientists or published in scientific journals." Anetode 05:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep based not so much on the merits of the article (which I would vote keep on as such), but because of the result of the closed AfD less than a month ago. Unless something major has changed, it is usually thought to be improper to renominate an article. (Apparently nominator didn't see the previous AfD, it must have not been in the article's Talk page; I missed the changed "The" in the article title too.) MCB 05:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't look at the talk page, I would have expected this Afd page to already exist if there had been a prior Afd page, but the rename of the article prevented this. -- Curps 06:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a close decision. I would have waited longer. It's still a delete. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The theory has not yet been accepted by scientists or published in scientific journals. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because all attempts to find any way to rewrite the article encyclopedically have failed, given that there is no encyclopedic context to the purported theory. Article creator admits he created the theory himself in 2001. FCYTravis 06:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article is in need of a massive rewrite (which I'm just gearing up to start on), but despite it's scant scientific weight there's 650 results for a google search for "neanderthal theory" and "autism" (a rather unlikely combination outside the context of this theory). I think it's a potentially encyclopedic topic in need of lots and lots of editing for NPOV. — Laura Scudder | Talk 06:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its likely because it was here on wikipedia a long time ago and thus has propagated to practically every existing wikipedia mirror. See the talk page of the article and reconsider your vote, please! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is likely not. Most of the links that FCYTravis deleted a couple of days ago were independent sources. Also, there are two distinct web-pages about it, and a number of indepedent articles. The whole concept of "aliens" and the "wrong planet" site, aspergia has associations with this theory --Rdos 08:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ninety-nine percent of those results have absolutely nothing to do with any purported theory. Get past the first two pages of search results and Neanderthal and autism are common enough words that they'll pop up in a search like this: "Democrats.com Archive: Bill Frist Frist is a Prime Suspect in Autism Lawsuit Exemption for Eli Lilly ... And despite his less than Neanderthal appearance, NARAL says Frist is "very much an ..." FCYTravis 06:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think not. On the 9:th page (of 9730 for autism neanderthal on yahoo), I found Neanderthal - free encyclopedia, Wrongplanet.net, http://www.masterliness.com/a/Aspies.htm . I just took the 9:th page as a random page. --Rdos 08:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I tweaked my search during edit conflict with this edit. — Laura Scudder | Talk 06:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, now please look closer at your results Laura - the first result from google is what looks like a mailing list thread, with neanderthal first being mentioned by "Leif Ekblad ", a.k.a. Rdos, a.k.a. the creator of this "theory". Pretty much every site there is either something like this or a wikipedia mirror. This has been a travesty on wikipedia for a while now and it needs to go. Please reconsider! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Ryan means is that he is defending the non-NPOV in the autism article. At the talk page I've challenged why historical and illogical autism theories are still kept there. I've also challenged why the opinion of many people in the autistic community has been placed in the sociology section, and isn't mentioned at all in central parts like causes, models etc. Obviously, Ryan wants this article to go so he can continue the POV in the autism article without any challenges. --Rdos 09:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds more like it. 650 results, most of which are Wikimirrors with this guy's personal Web page link everywhere. It boils down to this: there is not a single shred of actual scientific research that the author can present to support his purported theory. One man's original research, no matter how well-intentioned, is not encyclopedic and so does not belong on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 06:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Of 650 Google results that Laura Scudder found, 452 of them also contain the word "Rdos" somewhere. Single source personal Web site "theory." FCYTravis 06:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it that it is single source when 200 (30%) didn't contain the words? --Rdos 09:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Okay okay, I normally have a pretty low bar for inclusion, but you've made a good point. I just got excited at a good NPOV challenge. — Laura Scudder | Talk 07:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unquestionable original research. mikka (t) 07:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. Usrnme h8er 07:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. --G Rutter 10:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The pages that Rdos is citing here as purportedly independent sources are no more than Wikipedia mirrors, as Ryan says. The masterliness.com article is no more than an out-of-date (and non-GFDL-conformant) copy of our own Asperger's syndrome article. (It's the version from around July 2005.) That site is already on our Wikipedia:mirrors and forks list, in fact. As for "Neanderthal - free encyclopedia", wherever that is: The words "free encyclopedia" in the title are a dead giveaway. It will be a mirror of our Neanderthal article (which was edited by Rdos to mention xyr theory). Uncle G 12:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? The following links have nothing to do with wikipedia:Niburu A psychologist talk about the theory at mindpixel.com Autistics.org library article AS-IF Site, Causes Research section Neurodiversity site Indepedent two-ancestor hypothesis Autism / Asperger info ADHD and autism portal L-carnosine - a possible utility of the theory Link on swedish "Neuronätet". I'm sure there are other examples of this as well, if nothing else at various personal homepages, livejournal pages and not to mention discussion forums. This is because the theory is well-known, not because it was featured at wikipedia --Rdos 13:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated by Bikeable when this this list was presented in the previous AFD discussion, this is a very misleading set of links. Of those 10 sites: 5 are bare link directories that simply link to your rdos.net web page, 1 is non-existent page, 1 is a web log posting that comments upon a restatement of your rdos.net web page but does not provide any real scientific peer review of the hypothesis, 1 makes no mention of autism at all, and 1 mentions the hypothesis tangentially in a footnote and similarly provides no peer review. Only 1 site even touches upon Neanderthals and autism directly, and even then does not propound the hypothesis described in the article under discussion here. Uncle G 20:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose you must be yoking. I don't know which one you regard to touch upon Neanderthals and autism directly, but clearly 3 sites do this. The Indepedent two-ancestor hypothesis clearly is a paralell to this article, that has been invented independently (hint: search for Neanderthal in the article). The article at mindpixel.com also deals with Neanderthals and autism. It seems like the autistics.org site is temporarily unavailable, but it also deals directly with Neanderthals, elves and autism. --Rdos 20:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • False. Only 1 does. As I stated, it does not propound the hypothesis described in the article under discussion here. The article at mindpixel is the web log posting that, as I also said, does not provide any real scientific peer review of the hypothesis. Uncle G 00:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unpopular pseudoscience, I still don't know how this survived AfD last time. Lord Bob 14:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was 10-5 delete. Close. Marskell 16:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research. Sliggy 15:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research and pseudoscience to boot. — ceejayoz ^★ 15:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable original research. Bikeable 16:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nominator. Anville 17:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. --Isotope23 18:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This may well be original research/personal essay, however there is something to the fact that Neanderthal had larger brain volume than humans and that Autistic people also have larger brain volume, both counterintuitive and as is predicted in my own hypergeometric hypothesis. I was not aware that anyone else was thinking this way until I discovered this unpublished theory. Deleting this article may prove to be a mistake. I think it is an example of the Internet, and Wikipedia doing science a service. - Mindpixel 04:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (Actually 20:44:39, according to edit history. Uncle G 23:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Unfortunately, whether or not it's a wonderful theory that could revolutionise everything we know about the brain and some of its disorders, original research is expressly and strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Original research belongs in a journal or a book, not an encyclopaedia. Lord Bob 21:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. Unverifiable outside of mirrorworld. Ziggurat 22:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The only sources for this article are Rdos xyrself, either directly via contributions here or from other web pages elsewhere that xe has written (hyperlinks to which have been distributed liberally to directory sites and to wikis). The author cites Wikipedia mirrors as independent sources and web logs where the hypothesis is not reviewed at all as peer review. Clearly they are not. Discussion with the author, both here and in the previous AFD discussion, produces nothing but claimed independent sources that turn out not to be anything of the sort, and that in all but one or two cases don't even address this article's subject at all. This hypothesis has undergone no peer review, and is original research, forbidden by our no original research policy. Supporting arguments from Mindpixel, the web log's owner, are contrary to our Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy. I suggest to both Rdos and Mindpixel that they expend their efforts on getting a paper published in a scientific journal, rather than on trying to use Wikipedia to perform an end-run. Delete. Uncle G 00:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First of all, this is OR. But secondly, it should be obvious that this article is highly ableist. Would we allow an article on Wikipedia that says African American people are Neanderthals? --Jacquelyn Marie 15:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Where does it say African American people are Neanderthals? It has just the opposite position, it is Eurasians that are part Neanderthal and these genes are concentrated in autism and Asperger's syndrome. --Rdos 17:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that was intended to be an example. "Allowing an article on x would be like allowing an article on y." Lord Bob 17:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Short answer: yes. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case a bad example. The article clearly doesn't agree with the stereotypical picture of Neanderthals. It in fact sees Neanderthals as superior to modern humans on various accounts. The only thing that modern humans contributed to us was the social system, the same system that autistics cannot handle very well. --Rdos 19:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, that privileges the social system instead of the autistics. It says that autistics are deficient, instead of "modern humans," and that they are like Neanderthals, no? --Jacquelyn Marie 20:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The social system is only privileged if there is something it can spread. Innovations and creativity is the domain of Neanderthals and autistics. Without these traits, 'modern humans' wouldn't be very modern at all. So, with your reasoning, all the social types would also be deficient in innovative & persistence abilities, no? Why do we not invent psychiatric diagnosis for this to? (look here for a clue: [1] --Rdos 04:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Dude, I love isnt.autistics.com. I've been there myself. My whole point is: no one is/should be considered "deficient," in either direction. And by the way, I don't fall on the autistic spectrum, and I resent the implication that "innovation and creativity" can't be my domain too. (By the way, I won't call myself neurotypical because I am not: I have an autonomic disorder, so my nervous system is anything but typical.) --Jacquelyn Marie 15:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • You probably wouldn't enjoy isnt.autistics.com if it weren't explicitly telling you it is a parody. The "research" presented about autism is not a parody AFAIK, and thus must be dealt with as severe discrimination. You were earlier very concerned with blacks being called Neanderthals, so I guess you would be concerned by discrimination issues? Why then aren't you concerned about discrimination of autistics? --Rdos 15:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I am concerned about discrimination. Of autistics, or of anyone else. That's why I am here, debating this. By the way, please mind your wikiquette. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not going to argue "is this ableism" or "is this not ableism" here anymore, as that doesn't change my vote, because it is still original research, as shown below! --Jacquelyn Marie 20:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • By the way, RDOS, would this be proof that you in fact authored this theory? [2] That mightn't be your home page that it links to, does it? --Jacquelyn Marie 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The link you presented isn't my home-page. It is a independent site about the theory --Rdos 04:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Of course it isn't your homepage. It's another page with a link to your home page, stating that you are the person to have creaed the theory! --Jacquelyn Marie 15:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I suggest you study the page again. It references my theory (yes, I invented it, and this is common knowledge here). The author of this page has done his own research in order to validate it. --Rdos 15:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Actually, that's precisely what I was trying to get across. Thanks for rewording it in a way that's better for you to understand. So, by what you just said, this article is OR. Yours. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See also my comments on the article’s talkpage. As far as Wikipedia protocol goes: this is classic OR, and sets a dangerous precedent: one passionate individual attempting to use Wikipedia and its various mirrors, and private newsgroups, in order to create an illusory buzz about a personal theory. This theory is unknown in the scientific community, it is unknown to anyone who has not come across Rdos' own writing on the topic here on Wikipedia, on his webpage or on newsgroups. Rdos has all but admitted that he is trying to use wikipedia to propogate his personal theory. Perhaps he hopes that if he continues stirring things up on wikipedia and the mirrors, his theory will no longer be unknown. If Rdos can cite the buzz he himself has created as support for his claim that this is a significant theory, what's to stop any other devoted individual from promoting their pet theory in likewise fashion? Also please note that at the same time Rdos has been attempting to eliminate a well-established theory on Autism that he personally disagrees with; see Rdos’ RfD for Sensory Integration Dysfunction, and his attempted changes to the main article on Autism. However open and tolerant we’d like to be, Wikipedia should strive to give a picture of reality, not one individual’s wishful thinking about the reality he’d like to see.--Woggly 06:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Sensory Integration Disorder is a well established theory? Among whom, and who supports it? In the VfD discussion nobody could prove it was "well-established". It wasn't part of DSM, it had no support in MEDLINE and so on. It did have some backing up in a book by a professional. However, the question is if we should accept that professionals with a clear agenda to make money on drugs, treatments and group-homes should be allowed to monopolize the truhth about autism? --Rdos 13:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SID is not up for debate here. You've just proved my point, and shot yourself in the foot. --Woggly 15:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. My point was that why should we accept a theory without support because a professional have written a book about it? That does not make it properly referenced. SID was only retained because it had been there for several years --Rdos 15:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete let me count the ways: "It references my theory (yes, I invented it, and this is common knowledge here). The author of this page has done his own research in order to validate it. --Rdos 15:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)" (emphasis mine) Rdos authored the theory; Rdos authored the article; therefore it is OR, vanity and a soapbox. No matter how valuable the information itself, at best it is a source text and should move to Wikisource with a soft redirect. Who knows, the scientific method may die in a flurry of feelgooditis and Christian Evangelism, and the theory may come to be widely adopted, at which point Rdos can say "I told you so." Until that happens Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Kgf0 22:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all fairness, I think that the "author of this page" mentioned in the quote above refers not to the WP article but to the page Jacquelyn Marie referenced above, which Rdos did not write ([3]). That doesn't change the fact, of course, that Rdos authored both the theory and the article up for deletion. Bikeable 23:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Bikeable is correct. I referred to the indepedendent article. I followed Kgf0 advice and moved the article to wikisource Wikisource/Neanderthal_Theory_of_Autism. It seems like this AfD is a lost case. --Rdos 15:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, (A) citing a source that cites yourself is hardly independent; (B) I did not advise you to move to a new directory, but rather that the text as a whole be moved to the project described at Wikisource which is actually located at wikisource.org; and (C) having now reviewed their contribution guidelines, your article will not be appropriate for submission there until you have first published it elsewhere, assuming that even that modicum of success garners you "notability." Therefore, I reiterate my delete vote, and extend it to include the malformed Wikisource/Neanderthal Theory of Autism as well. --Kgf0 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a bunch of poorly substantiated quasi-science that would be better talked about somewhere else, if at all...--Daniel Lotspeich 09:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, original research, vanity, and now also attempting to circumvent the AfD process. Along with this article, we should also delete its copy at Wikisource/Neanderthal Theory of Autism (which is still on Wikipedia, contrary to what the poster believes.) Wikisource should not be a dumping ground for deleted Wikipedia articles. -- The Anome 09:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only does this nomination violate AfD policy, but now you've violated policy again. This VfD is *nor* appropriate for WikiSource. The votes here cannot be used in your deletion campaign at WikiSource. You are free to nominate it for deletion at WikiSource as well, but surely the votes cast here are not applicable. The rules at vWikiSource are different. I've reverted your changes. --Rdos 04:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't do that. Strike out the addition if you want, but removing things from a discussion is bad form in the highest.
      brenneman^(t)(c) 04:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your duplicate page is not at Wikisource, regardless of what you might wish to believe. Creating another article in Wikipedia with a page name that starts with "Wikisource/" is not the same thing as moving an article to Wikisource. I find it interesting that you wish to cite the Wikisource rules at us. If you had actually read them [4], you would already know that one of the criteria for inclusion of an article is that it not be "Original writings by a contributor to the project". -- The Anome 06:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- clear case of OR. There's just no question about it. ManekiNeko | Talk 10:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: It is difficult to reconcile the many delete votes above with the basic idea that the Wiki should further the advance of knowledge. Given the substantial amount of discussion and acceptance of the Neanderthal theory (especially within the autism community), it is impossible to conclude the article is irrelevant or unworthy. The real question begging to be answered here is just why is there so much visceral antipathy toward the subject? Perhaps it is because, for generations, the term Neanderthal has been used deliberately (often by the media) to promote bigotry, intolerance and hostility? Or perhaps the VfD process has attracted a disproportionate number of deletionists, bent on advancing thought stopping objectives? A new article stub was being prepared for the Neanderthal theory of autism, which then seemed unnecessary with a redirect to this article; in light of the above, however, perhaps it'd be best to submit it anyhow, rather than leaving a redirect to this mess. Ombudsman 23:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed possible to conclude that this article is irrelevant and unworthy, this is the very basis of afd. Also, have you ever taken a glance at the logical fallacy page? Begging the question and Argumentum_ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial both seem to creep in to your defense of this article. --Anetode 03:36, 16 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.