The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Topic appears to lack notability Health Researcher ( talk) 16:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I wasn't aware that blogs could be cited in Wikipedia articles. If they can, this can easily be done. John jacob lyons ( talk) 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not the Biology of Religion blog of the Nature Publishing Group count as a reliable source? Also, please bear in mind that this article was not really 'self-published' since it was invited by the editor.
John jacob lyons (
talk) 08:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
reply
I want to suggest that the article at http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion/2011-03-24/the-genetic-priming-of-religiosity-guest-post-by-john-jacob-lyons?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d8bc0721c26ed03%2C0 does establish that Genetic Priming is notable. It is a well-known scientific blog that is recommended by The Nature Publishing Group which is one of the most respected such groups in the scientific world. Furthermore I would add that I was invited to write this piece by the Editor of the blog. The discussion that followed was uniformly positive. John jacob lyons ( talk) 19:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
As a student of Psychology of Religion, I found this article made a useful contribution to the question of why people are religous and act in religious ways. It has created considerable interest in the academic community of which I am aware. Alice Herron MA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.143.226 ( talk) 09:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 87.112.143.226 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The Genetic priming theory has created considerable interest/ discussion among my friends and colleagues in the field of Evolutionary Psychology and in Psychology of Religion in particular. The article is interesting, well-written and potentially important in Evolutionary Theory. It should definitely be retained in Wikipedia. A. Violetta Barzankian-Kaydan, BSc (Psych) Hons, MSc Psych, MA Psych of Religion —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.204.222.137 (
talk) 14:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC) —
90.204.222.137 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
How Wikipedia Works: Editors new to Wikipedia - thank you for your interest in participating in Wikipedia - should understand that "notability" is regulated by guidelines listed at WP:NOTE. Therefore creating a positive verbal buzz does not constitute notability. Note also that the notability guideline says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity.... Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally," and that "Multiple sources are generally expected". Please also be aware that this discussion is not a vote, and, for future reference, please also read WP:MEAT with regard to soliciting comments from outside editors. -- Health Researcher ( talk) 16:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Topic appears to lack notability Health Researcher ( talk) 16:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I wasn't aware that blogs could be cited in Wikipedia articles. If they can, this can easily be done. John jacob lyons ( talk) 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not the Biology of Religion blog of the Nature Publishing Group count as a reliable source? Also, please bear in mind that this article was not really 'self-published' since it was invited by the editor.
John jacob lyons (
talk) 08:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
reply
I want to suggest that the article at http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion/2011-03-24/the-genetic-priming-of-religiosity-guest-post-by-john-jacob-lyons?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d8bc0721c26ed03%2C0 does establish that Genetic Priming is notable. It is a well-known scientific blog that is recommended by The Nature Publishing Group which is one of the most respected such groups in the scientific world. Furthermore I would add that I was invited to write this piece by the Editor of the blog. The discussion that followed was uniformly positive. John jacob lyons ( talk) 19:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC) reply
As a student of Psychology of Religion, I found this article made a useful contribution to the question of why people are religous and act in religious ways. It has created considerable interest in the academic community of which I am aware. Alice Herron MA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.143.226 ( talk) 09:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 87.112.143.226 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The Genetic priming theory has created considerable interest/ discussion among my friends and colleagues in the field of Evolutionary Psychology and in Psychology of Religion in particular. The article is interesting, well-written and potentially important in Evolutionary Theory. It should definitely be retained in Wikipedia. A. Violetta Barzankian-Kaydan, BSc (Psych) Hons, MSc Psych, MA Psych of Religion —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.204.222.137 (
talk) 14:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC) —
90.204.222.137 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
How Wikipedia Works: Editors new to Wikipedia - thank you for your interest in participating in Wikipedia - should understand that "notability" is regulated by guidelines listed at WP:NOTE. Therefore creating a positive verbal buzz does not constitute notability. Note also that the notability guideline says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity.... Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally," and that "Multiple sources are generally expected". Please also be aware that this discussion is not a vote, and, for future reference, please also read WP:MEAT with regard to soliciting comments from outside editors. -- Health Researcher ( talk) 16:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC) reply