Deletion of Neoteric evolutionary theory

Comment: Since even the author has now, according to the aforementioned comments at :Talk:Neoteric evolutionary theory, agreed that the article should be deleted, move for |snow close. Thanks to all
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (:WP:SNOW)

Comment: This is (poor) original research from start to finish. None of the cited sources discuss this supposed theory, and I can't find a single instance of the word "Neoteric" being applied to human evolution. The substance of it—apparently an attempt to revive human exceptionalism as a scientific theory—is also extremely |fringey. I'm really surprised that {{u|Graeme Bartlett}} accepted it at AfC. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: per .  Not seeing any sources directly discussing this.  The closest I could find was two books, firstly https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=c5xMBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA97 this book, which has a chapter on "The rise of neoteric positivism".  This doesn't really discuss evolution, it seems to be a defence, or reinvention, of logical positivism.  However, our essay article may be looking at evolution from the POV of this philosophical school.  The philosophy itself is barely notable, let alone its view (if it actually has one) on evolution.  The second book is https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=c5xMBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA97 differential evolution with a chapter on "Neoteric differential evolution".  The book is about the algorithms of evolution.  It is highly mathematical and does not seem to relate to our article at all.  I suspect that the word ''neoteric'' is being used here merely in a generic sense of its meaning.  It does however, have a passing mention to Darwin in a student question "Does differential evolution obey the natural selection theory of Darwin?" (sorry, I don't know the answer – I make a poor student
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTESSAY)

Comment: WP:SNOW|per strong consensus - even if it is not technically |original research, it is certainly a |synthesis of disparate sources, none of which can be |verified easily, thus it is psuedo-science and not even wrong
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:V)