Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deora's GW Prediction

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deora's GW Prediction

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an original research article, transcribed by an editor from her blog here[1]

However, Wikipedia is not the place for original research.WP:OR.

Wikipedia is not a forum for original thought. WP:FORUM.

This page has been speedied twice via G12 already, but since the article creator has claimed to be the original author, and made statements releasing copyright, it is ambiguous. Therefore, I wish to raise it here at AfD to decide the matter definitively. And then in the future it could simply be speedied CSD G4. Pstanton (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:No original research. Text has been blanked from the original blog, and in any case author could grant a copyright release; but this is clear OR. Sorry, Deora, but Wikipedia is not a place to publish your work - see also WP:NOT#OR. JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Article is an original essay which fails WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. Also, the featured main Global warming article already exists with several well-documented sub-articles on predictions. A separate article of one person's view constitutes an improper point-of-view fork. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a person in India's Rajasthan State writing about global warming and ground water depletion (hence the "GW") and possible consequences regarding earthquakes and shift in the Earth's axis. Nobody paid to Jor-El until it was too late for Krypton. Mandsford 13:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if the copyvio material is removed, I believe the article should still be deleted for the reasons given above. OlYeller^Talktome 05:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OY, I declined your G12 speedy tag because: first, the text does not come from multiple websites but rather one specific blog; and Ydeora, the blogsite owner, is currently attempting to rephrase this article to pass our copyright standards; second, the purpose of this AFD is determine if those efforts are worthwhile. A third G12 speedy would require this discussion begin again with the next revised creation. It's best to let this run. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry. I should have checked the edit history more carefully before tagging for G12. Sorry for the disruption folks. OlYeller^Talktome 17:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable personal essay. Edward321 (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.