Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre-Genesis 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Genesis Theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable theory and original research. this edit by the OP pretty much admits to this fact anyway. Steamroller Assault (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - "This theory was conceived by the Crumax group as a viable alternative to common Creationist and Evolution theories." Umm, yeah. --B (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete According to the article's author, User:Crumax, "This theory was conceived by the Crumax group as a viable alternative to common Creationist and Evolution theories." That's pretty well "OR" in a nutshell. Mandsford 20:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is fringe stuff on both theological grounds and scientific grounds. Looks like original research. Delete per norm. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks more like a hoax to me than anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research is too kind a description. &mdash; RHaworth 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear OR, no evidence of notability for this theory. I don't believe a speedy criteria fits this, though the COI between a theory propogated by the "Crumax Group" and a user named "Crumax" cannot be ignored. Borderline promotional, perhaps? Speedy if possible, delete normally otherwise. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the title "Pre-Genesis Theory" a useful redirect to something else? Seems generic enough to have been referenced somewhere, outside of the whole Crumax thing. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, 5th millennium BC ought to get it...Mandsford 01:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find any mention of this theory outside this article. OR.  Andrew Keenan Richardson 23:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Response We have tried to avoid 'vanity' previously, but if credit is required then so be it if it is not mentioned anywhere else on the net. Why cannot any original thought be produced on Wikipedia as an outlet anyway? What if Wikipedia is the author's/researcher's preferred medium? We are a philosophical, engineering and artistic group - not a hoax or intended to be promotional in any way. We have met obstruction before in a variety of areas and on various sites by 'restricting knowledge and facts' simply because what we released did not fit in with "site dogma". Crumax 16:12, 24 June 2010 (BST)
 * Wikipedia should not be any researcher's "preferred medium", as it is an encyclopedia, and not a publisher of original research. Take a look at those links for more information as to what this project is about. If your theory gains traction, and can be verified through reliable sources, then someone will inevitably write an article about it. Until then, there are other Wikis, like CreationWiki, which may have less stringent inclusion criteria. To be clear, the objection to your article here is not about the nature of the content, but the simple fact that your theory is not yet notable or verifiable. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable fringe theory. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Response Just bear in mind that because something is not published previously or non-verifiable on the internet, does not mean that it does not 'exist' or is not noteworthy and doing the rounds within other intellectual circles. We could have over time, just as many have done on Wikipedia and cleverly via extended contacts, set up a number of seemingly non-associated blogs, websites, inclusions on virtual publications, et al for 'vanity' and ego stroking purposes, and successfully evaded your detection. Naturally, we would never do this, but many thousands of people have and will continue to do so for a 'verifiable inclusion' on Wikipedia. The Pre-Genesis Theory had been proposed years ago (by us), 'is' known but surprisingly unpublished "until now" (or a failed attempt to do so by ourselves). If you looked at the history, we avoided credit of any kind initially. We assumed Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (a virtual book of real knowledge), and do not consider the Pre-Genesis Theory as original research but probably more 'original thought' (or, it was), with an appropriate title attached to that thought. By the methods we described above, simply another can falsely claim credit for this theory (under another name most possibly) and acquire approved inclusion, whereas Wikipedia will reject us - the true 'authors', yet accept and acknowledge them, despite the evidence temporarily existing now through these interactions. Hardly an encyclopedia for the 'true facts' if that were the case. I am hoping then, at the very least, we can stipulate milestones and achievements in a concise manner (facts, to us) on our User Wiki page.Crumax 12:31, 25 June 2010 (BST)
 * Yes, Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia, and that's precisely why it doesn't publish original research. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, which reflects what other (secondary) sources have published about people, things, events, etc. Mere existence is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia (if it were, I could write an article about my toe). The required criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia include notability (not noteworthiness - it must have actually been noted, not just be worthy of being so), supported by multiple reliable secondary sources - ie the subject must have been written about elsewhere. If you can get your theory noted in multiple reliable sources, then you can have an encyclopedia article about it here. But until then, you can't. Also, you say "We could have over time [...] set up a number of seemingly non-associated blogs, websites, inclusions on virtual publications". That would not have got you in Wikipedia, because blogs, your own websites, vanity sites, self-publications, etc, are not accepted sources - we need newspapers, journals, books published by commercial publishers, etc. For some guidance on what kinds of sources you need to get your theory noted by, please see WP:RS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd add that the reason that there's a policy against original research is that, if there weren't, everyone would want to write articles about their own theories, insights, philosophies, etc.  The price of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is that there have to be boundaries.  It's nothing personal, Crumax.  Mandsford 13:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Response Since it has been put across like that, fair comment. You are just trying to maintain a form of consistency and 'quality' on your site. A point was slightly misunderstood though - we were in fact referring to 'independent' sources which in fact were really not so, which was our point (probably not really highlighted well - note "seemingly non-associated" and "et al"). If you had inside information within certain scientific, engineering and medical circles say, you would understand why we state this (yes, certain 'influential' people and organizations do manipulate to such levels in order to gain credence). We as a group would never employ such tactics, naturally.Crumax 12:18, 26 June 2010 (BST)
 * I wish it were "my site", but you and I are equal when it comes to our right to contribute. I know that there are some people who brag about being "experienced Wikipedians", as if that were some type of achievement, and then feel that it gives them a reason to talk down to newcomers.  To the extent that I've done that, my apologies.  It does take a little bit of time to find out what's okay and what's not, and mostly it's a matter of figuring out whether to place information in its own article, or to weave it into existing pages.  Generally, there's a good reason for most of the do's and don't(s).  Mandsford 16:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. WP:OR. Maashatra11 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:OR. Once items are published elsewhere, the rules are different, of course. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 28 June 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.