Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neoteric evolutionary theory
as hoax, as original research and possibly also as |bollocks. The Google Books and Scholar links make it clear that this "theory" has '''never been published''' under this name. None of the references have "Neoteric" in their names. It is clear that there is no such thing as "Neoteric evolutionary theory", at least not under that name, outside of the mind of the author of this borderline nonsense. Clearly, "Neoteric" is just a way to say "new" with an implied subtext of "I am very clever and I know big words". This embellishment of language with knobs, doodads and ornamental finials continues throughout the "article" and successfully (if that is its intent) defeated my attempts to parse any sense into it. If there is anything here at all, and I'm certainly not saying that there is, then I suspect that it could be condensed down to one or two sentences that actually made sense. It is nice that people have their own theories about evolution and stuff but I feel that Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses has priority here, both in style and in (lack of) substance
— User:DanielRigal, 18:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:CB (Wikipedia:Complete bollocks)