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. Consensus is that the concept has received sufficient coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article will be moved to Autoconstructive evolution per the suggestion of Mark viking. Malinaccier (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconstructive[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDICT as a non-notable term with little significant coverage. User:Power~enwiki PROD-ed it but was de-prodded. DrStrauss talk 13:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Wikt there's nothing at wikt, so wiktionary-ising rather than deletion seems a good default, unless someone wants to use the many available sources to pass WP:GNG as an article (rather than a dict def). Widefox; talk 22:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Autoconstructive evolution. The multiple reliable sources added by SwisterTwister (Nice work!) show that autoconstructive evolution is a margianlly notable concept in evolutionary computation. As it stands, the article content is a reasonable stub and mostly describes the concept, not the etymology of the term. But titling it with just the adjective causes confusion on what this article is about. --Mark viking (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, per Mark viking's point. If it turns out that it can't be grown beyond a stub, then it can be merged into a larger article at a later date. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lee Spector -- it appears to be a private theoretical conception of his own--all the substantial references cited are by him or his group. Looking at the full list of authors for each shows the situation. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to a red link isn't a good idea. --Mark viking (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should rather have said redirect to new article on Spector, or repurpose to an article on him. This is not an infrequent occuraance , when someone writes an article on aconcept or a work wihthout realizing that the creator would be the better and more comprehensive topic. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 23 September 2017 (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.