Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocultures

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. — CharlotteWebb 05:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Biocultures

The only sites I can find on this look like patent nonsense, or are on yogurt. [1] [2]. Probably patent nonsense, at best simply non-notable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's actually a pretty big area in social sciences and humanities [3]. I'm surprised this article is so meagre. It would need a great deal of expanding,a nd it's outside of my own areas of knowledge, but there must be someone out there who could expand this. It's worth keeping in the long run. Freshacconci 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Using only the social science and humanities parts of Web of Science, no hits for the plural, 5 for the singular "bioculture". --a convenient trick to remove yogurt if you have access to the database. (added 3 with the word in the title. Have edited article to reflect the form in use; will move the page after the AfD.) DGG 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep following the references added by DGG. I will rewrite the text shortly so that it is not a copyvio of [4]. -- Black Falcon 02:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Never mind. I'll not attempt to rewrite the article given that "bioculture" seems to refer to two different things (unless they are one and the same and I've just gathered the wrong impression): (1) the interaction of the biological and the technological as provided here, and (2) the interaction of the biological and the cultural--also referred to as the biocultural paradigm--as described here. I will see if I can find some academic sources to clarify the issue. Nonetheless, despite this potential confusion (which, again, may only be the result of a misunderstanding on my part), I still think the article ought to be kept in lieu of the added references and the actuality of the subject. -- Black Falcon 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• From what I can tell, the second interaction which I've referenced above is the more notable one. How about adopting one of the following two statements as an introductory sentence:

Bioculture is an emerging field of study that seeks to synthesize biological and cultural anthropological paradigms and theories.

Source: Leatherman, Thomas L., and Alan H. Goodman. 1997. Expanding the biocultural synthesis toward a biology of poverty. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 102(1): 1-3.

Bioculture is a field of study that synthesizes biological and cultural perspectives in the fields of anthropology and human biology.

Source: Dufour, Darna L. 2006. Biocultural approaches in human biology. American Journal of Human Biology, 18(1): 1-9.

The difference seems not to be one of separate definitions, but rather one of separate focus: Leatherman and Goodman focus specifically on anthropology and Dufour focuses on human biology, but their definition of the concept is essentially the same. The topic is most definitely notable: by doing a search for appearances of the word "bioculture" or "biocultural" in article titles, I receive 18 article results for the AJPA alone. -- Black Falcon 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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.