Deletion of Ethics and evolutionary psychology

Comment: Opabinia has it right, the topic is not unencyclopedic, but the article is exceptionally poor.  Contra DGG it is very poorly sourced, there is only one sourced statement in the whole article.  That the ''Further reading'' section contains all the classics (could also do with Lee Dugatkin's ''Cheating Monkeys and Citizen Bees'' IMHO) does not equal a well referenced article.   As TBC points out, there is no reference linking the two aspects, and therefore the article qualifies as |OR by synthesis.  The lead section could form the core of a proper article, were it properly referenced (at least the first sentence absolutely must be supported by a reliable source). The rest of the article is a really poor collection of thumbnail sketches of other "main" articles on related topics which together do nothing to support the claims made in the lead section.  It would be a very good thing if DGG wrote a decent article to replace this, but it's current state is unacceptably poor
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)