Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pluripotent multipurpose genome


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Pluripotent multipurpose genome

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No references, cannot verify the existence of this genome. Either original research or an outright hoax. Contested PROD, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his October 11 reign of terror. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The term Pluripotent multipurpose genome is the creation of a Dutch creationist (who as a Wikipedia user created this page) who tries to use Wikipedia to legitimate his "theory" as science and spread the word. This page is an offshoot of GUToB Theory, which has already been deleted earlier. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Non-random mutation & Articles for deletion/Variation-inducing genetic element. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete WP:NOR violation and self-promotion by author, . There are no WP:MEDRS sources from which to build an appropriate article. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: some references in papers by the article author in the Journal of Creation, which does not appear to be a reliable source. Nothing else. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 20-Mule-Team Delete: You would think that if you were going to set out to violate WP:NOR and WP:COI to Get The Word Out, you'd at least do a good job of pushing your pseudo-science. If there was a WP:TURGIDMESS guideline, this would violate that too.   Ravenswing  16:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as Original research. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:15, 13 October 2010 (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.