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. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savanna Theory[edit]

the term not used in anthropological literature, only used by aquatic ape hypothesis proponents. Article is basically a strawman. Tried to redirect to Biped#Evolution but it was reverted. Hopeless JPotter 06:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge. Mostly Keep, due to it's heavy use, and the fact that the other theories listed under Biped#Evolution are significantly less notable, and were used for a shorter period of time. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, initially I was leaning merge to Aquatic ape hypothesis, but this article is a bit long for that. Aquatic ape hypothesis is, in my opinion, patently ridiculous (and even less supported than the "Stoned Ape" theory), but the argument against traditional evolutionary theory by proponents of AAH appears to be documented, and documented enough under the name "Savanna Theory" (or Savannah Theory) that it isn't a neologism. WP:V states verifiability, not truth and this seems to be a very good example of such. The fact that there is a Savanna Theory can be verified... whether it is true or not is irrelevant. Article has POV issues, but those are editorial concerns. We don't wipe out the Astrology article becuase it is complete bollocks... we edit it to be a balanced, encyclopedic view of the topic.--Isotope23 13:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in some form, be it renamed or perhaps merged. I also tend to think the length renders it a poor choice for merging. People will definitely come across the term and come here searching for it. --Aranae 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've heard "Savanna Theory" used seriously by people who weren't "Aquatic Ape" proponents; admittedly, they were only doing so in order to have something to refer to the current most-popular hypothesis, but it's not just an epithet used by "Aquatic Ape" fans. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Clearly, as referenced above, there are some tagential mentions of "savannah theory", but also the top google hits for it are all aah/aat proponents. So while yes there are mentions of the phrase, the phrase has mainly been co-opted by aquatic ape people. Also, the content of the article doesn't describe terrestrial based theories like Biped#Evolution does, but dedicates most of the space to the description of the idea vis a vis aquatic ape hypothesis and to criticism of the land based theories. I think a better landing for it would be something like Origin of bipedalism in humans with an expanding treatment of Biped#Evolution Thanks, JPotter 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The savanna theory article needs a lot of work, however, some of the older versions of the article are slightly more coherent. The savanna hypothesis appears to be a term that is actually used by a number of people, mostly proponents of the aquatic ape hypothesis, and for that reason I am against deletion. Another possbility is a merge with the aquatic ape page. For more explanation of my position see the discussion section in savanna theory. As to the truth of the claims, I have no idea, but I agree with Isotope23 on verifiability, not truth. Nicolharper 20:43, 4 August 2006 (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.