Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNA consciousness


 * 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   delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

DNA consciousness

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A nonsensical crock of junk with no indication of noteability. The vast majority of quoted sources are conveniently from a single author on the subject. I'd have categorized this AFD under science and technology, but that would be implying that this is scientific in any way. Jtrainor (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Any statement made in the article specific to the subject has a reference from John Grandy, but references applicable to most articles in the field of genetics. Seems like a hoax to me. Yutsi  Talk/  Contributions  15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:Complete Bollocks - pure, unrestrained nonsensical theorizing of the worst sort, with no foundation in reality whatsoever, dressed up with some real biological references as Camouflage. One-man fringe theory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It is simply a non-notable theory. ChemNerd (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I am uncomfortable with the rude comments here, and ask that they be dialed down. But I don't feel that the sources are notable enough to justify an article. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. It may be nonsense, and it may be the biology of the new millennium -- it may even be both.  But in the absence of independent reliable sources we can't have an article on it.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete - Not finding sources that cover this topic. I did find this mention in Salon, but not much else. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable as science (as if it were science). Non-notable as woo.  All references are either general to neurobiology and don't refer to the 'theory', or are self-authored in an off-topic general publication of dubious quality (an Anthropology encyclopedia, which should not be considered a WP:RS for molecular consciousness). Agricolae (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - seems a genuine WP:FRINGE belief expressed by Timothy Leary and others, but is probably not notable enough for an article. -- 202.124.72.190 (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL, Looie496 and Cusop Dingle. I don't see any sources that can show that this model is notable yet. It does not, on the other hand, appear to be complete bollocks. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. The source found by Northamerica merely mentions the subject; the salon article does not discuss the subject in any depth, except in the context of kaballah. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Open to snow -- fails to meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable OR. Complete nonsense of zero encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is largely based on original research. In addition, the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  22:56, 9 February 2012 (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.