Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Message from GOD in our DNA


 * 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Message from GOD in our DNA

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

Possibly hoax article, violates WP:NOR and possibly WP:NFT. Lacks any reliable sources. Seems like somebody's essay even. Very odd. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Had been PRODed 3 times prior, but kept getting removed. Last PROD was for "patent nonsense". Honestly I'm not sure if this doesn't qualify for speedy deletion as patent nonsense, but I figured I might as well bring it here. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I meant speedy deletion as pure vandalism; patent nonsense doesn't apply here. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete OR, Essay. Hoax at best. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speculative essay that interprets pseudo-arbitrary data as words from God.  You could do that with a tree, yanno? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Original Research -Rushyo (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename Correct interpretation of the data using latest DNA sequencing techniques unambiguously indicates the message is from DOG. Peacock (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ( or just speedy this nonsense )
 * Delete Even sillier than the Bible Code, perhaps meant to be a satire on finding messages, but still not notable. Barring a documentary on The History Channel, this won't go very far beyond the guy's MySpace page.  Mandsford (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * delete Complete bollocks Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per all of the above. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So maybe we can have a discussion about this page, check out the talk section. Do, please respond.Creation-of-Heaven (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Could we have some comments from people that don't hate this page. Maybe someone that can admit that the letters of the molecules of DNA, are fact. And that this doesn't necessarily have to be a message from God. It's just that it is there as one of the words.Creation-of-Heaven (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Happy dissecting!
 * With all respect, I for one don't hate the page, as you seem to think. This just isn't the place for such a study into this. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * could you maybe produce some reliable, Verfiable source that asserts some claim to this stuff? And don't give us your crocodile tears about bias with respect to the page.  Please see Young_Earth_creationism, Biblical_literalism or Intelligent_design for notable subjects which are treated with respect on this encyclopedia despite their inherently false and corrupting nature (Yes, I went there.  Intelligent design, biblical literalism and YEC teach people to be incurious, fearful and ignorant).  They all have pages because they are subjects about which many books and articles have been written.  I would sooner never see wikipedia again than see them deleted for their inherent falsity.  Protonk (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another note, are argument is not that the letters for the DNA representation are not fact. The argument is that the article as written is suitable for inclusion. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. We are having a discussion, and we don't hate the page, we just think it's nonsense, at least I do. You could make any message you like by these means, and the article offers plenty of choice. I like "CAT DOG RAP" best. It was clever of God to foresee the letters that would be used for the DNA components; I wonder why he chose to write his message in English? JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivia in English language. God (if He exists) speaks in hebrew or latin, not in anglo-barbarian. Humans (not God) choose the name of the DNA's particles: if Adenine is named Fadenine, Uracyl is selected... F and U and C... it makes sense. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete In agreement along the lines of the thoughts of Zerokitsune Refusetobesilenced (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep In agreement that the dna particles were chosen by humans. But they are now universaly used.  And the english language was chosen by humans to be the primary language on earth.  The letters are still there.Creation-of-Heaven (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Is that acceptable?  Does anybody agree? please
 * "the english language was chosen by humans to be the primary language on earth" this has to be a poorly orchestrated hoax. You've GOT to be pulling our legs about this. Protonk (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Response I look at it more as a "false prophet" (or more likely, a person making fun of religion) who has gone to absurd lengths to spell G-O-D. The "G" is from guanine, one of the four components of DNA, okay, that's fine, but the "O" and the "D" are drawn from "deoxyribose".  I guess you could spell "Satan" from the letters in "cytosine", "adenine", "thymine" and "guanine" too-- cytoSineAdenineThymineguANine -- and without mixing the letters around either.  Pretty stupid, huh? Mandsford (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Blogs and Wikipedia are not reliable sources. See also WP:NFT.  GRBerry 23:40, 23 June 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.