Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Purpose Evolution Theory


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 03:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

First Purpose Evolution Theory

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The named suggester of this theory appears rather difficult to trace. The theory itself is difficult to trace also, and appears to be a mishmash of other theories. The lack of source material is another drawback. To my mind, distinctly non-notable, if not hoax. (As always, I am very willing to be reliably proven wrong.) Peridon (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral (see below) - I have been trying to find sources for this article and have been unable find any good ones. This might mean what you say is true. However I did come across a few sources naming it, but they don't have much at all to do with the 'theory'. Perhaps you should ask the creator of the article and notify him/her about this deletion proposal as it doesn't look like that person will take a second look at the article. --Knowzilla 18:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have notified the author of the article about this afd nomination. ;) Lets hope (s)he has a look at this. --Knowzilla 18:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As per WP:OR. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing to support the inclusion. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable.  Just a huge OR.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability and article is an essay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. I typed in "Jonathan-Fieldhouse first-purpose" on Google and guess where the one result leads: You guessed it; right here to the WP article presently proposed for deletion. Obviously it's total OR. Get it out of here before the mirror sites start picking it up. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per several comments above. --Knowzilla 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * delete Original research, no sources even mentioning the idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete OR &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:56, 29 December 2008 (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.