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 no consensus/weak keep as a teaching method - Still needs revamping though. Non admin. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 12:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pluvialas[edit]

hoax, no references on google found;prod deleted NeilN 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because hoax, no references on google found;prod deleted:

NeilN 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I was able to find refs to the pollenpeeper fairly easily [1]. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changed my vote based on below

Comment This [2] says the pollenpeeper is fictitious, created to help teachers show how evolution works. NeilN 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there you have it; that's why I made a comment rather than a vote, figuring I wasn't qualified nor knew enough about the topic in question. But at least wanted to point out Just In Case, but your rebuttal seems clear enough to me. ~~I'm going to keep my comment a comment, tho...~~ Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revamp. Now that you've found out, NeilN, that it's not a hoax but a teaching example, I think we should have it ~~hear~~ here to explain to people who might misunderstand it. I envision one article, probably Pollenpeeper, with all the others redirecting to it. The article would not have a taxobox; it would just go

Pollenpeepers are fictitious birds used to teach the evolutionary theory of speciation by adaptive radiation. They are given the equally fictitious genus Eoireireitum and family Foliumaves. A Web site containing their invented evolutionary history is available.<reference to PBS site>

One review says the Web site is effective for clearing up common student misconceptions.<reference to review above>

I'm not sure what the categories would be—educational software or something. Do we have a cat for fictitious organisms?

Maybe on the borderline of notability, but useful.

Thanks, NeilN, for mentioning this at WP:BIRD. —JerryFriedman 00:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe the article should be called Evolution: Darwin: An Origin of Species. All the fictitious taxa (which I believe I got slightly wrong above) would be named in bold in the lead. Certainly there should be a link to Evolution (TV series), which the site is associated with. —JerryFriedman 02:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp/keep per JerryFriedman - but be sure to state clearly that it is an fictional exemplar and not a real species. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp/keep as above. Dysmorodrepanis 01:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Eoireitum does seem to be a complete hoax (no relevant Google hits, though it may be the parts of a Latin verb). —JerryFriedman 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp/keep as above. Jimfbleak 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most seem untraceable. Pollenpeeper can be mentioned in the article covering the text or tv program that it is used in, a separate article seems unwarranted. Shyamal 06:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, why not just use the very real example of Galapagos finches? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or Hawaiian honeycreepers, which is what the pollenpeepers are based on. That's a question for the people who created the Web site, not for anyone here, and I'm sure they have a pedagogical answer. —JerryFriedman 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ditto to Casliber - MPF 22:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my suggestion to redirects - In light of the above comments, how about a redirect to Evolution (TV series)? As Shyamal suggested, I added a sentence to that article that mentions the Web site, including the pollenpeepers. I think it's better for people typing "Pluvialas" etc. to get something, just in case anyone's confused by the site. I'd have been bold and replaced all the articles with redirects myself, but apparently you're not supposed to remove AfD tags until there's a consensus. —JerryFriedman 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This seems like an education-cruft hoax. "Now that you found out." Whatever. There's nothing here that a REAL species example wouldn't teach. Actually, these articles are dangerous because children often aren't able to discern between fact and fiction. When they find out these are fictictious entries, the result will be less 'faith' in what they learn at school, and could lead to the erroneous assumption that 'creationists are right.' A fake article on evolution is NOT the evolutionist's friend. Moreover, it seems that whoever created these articles did so from a bad-faith perspective. The article, if it exists, should have been objective, and the first objective truth is that these ideas are 'fictional' and exist only with the context of a TV show. Yet, that wasn't done here. Instead, it seems what was done is a too-smug-by-half, 'gotcha' approach. Not funny and not constructive, and makes Wikipedia look bad.Ryoung122 09:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this is a good way to teach evolution is not up to us to decide. Your criticisms on that point should be addressed to the people who created and maintain the Web site. In my opinion, criticism of this method of teaching evolution has nothing to do with whether these fictitious birds should have articles at Wikipedia or be mentioned in some other way. The possibility that people, especially children, might think the Pollenpeepers are real is, in my opinion, a reason to keep the articles here at least as redirects, so someone looking for further information will find out that these birds are fictitious. I agree, however, with your point that Wikipedia looks bad because of that possibility and the articles' being probably created in bad faith. So I'm going to do what I (and everyone) should have done and edit the articles to say they're fictitious. That way no one will be misled while this debate is going on. —JerryFriedman 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and possibly a hoax. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and the information could be folded into the Evolution (TV series) article if it can be presented in an encyclopedic way (and I'm not sure about that). I see no need to even keep a redirect. Just delete. Noroton 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect per JerryFriedman. As fictional creatures, there's no notability - but, as a teaching method, there are enough sources to justify a combined article on the method, mentioning the fictional elements in detail. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:25, 24 September 2007 (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.