:::The Alcorta paper, out of 27 pages of text, spends one page discussing ocher as evidence of early human ritual.  They find that evidence convincing.  Menstruation, however, is not discussed.  I'm unclear on how the Alcorta paper is a discussion of the "entire" theory, or even a significant part of it.  My reading was that Alcorta and Sosis took the ochre-ritual connection as an independent theory, and ignored the rest of Knight et al.'s work.  Although summaries of the Hovers paper seem to indicate a similar approach as the Alcorta paper, even if it does discuss the entire theory as presented in this article, it does not fulfill the notability requirement.  Because Knight, Power, and Watts were co-authors of the paper , it is not independent. 

 :::The citation numbers discussed in the AfD suggested to editors that the notability requirement could be met.  Not that it currently was met.  Wikipedia requires articles to assert their notability, and this article currently does not do that. 

 :::Martinklopstock, what did you mean about the same discussion getting revisited?