Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variation-inducing genetic element

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) 00:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Variation-inducing genetic element (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Appears to be original research; can't be sure, because there are no references whatsoever. Veracity is questionable. Contested PROD, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his October 11 reign of terror. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The term VIGE 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. This blog should suffice to prove that this is all about creationism and not science. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pluripotent multipurpose genome & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-random mutation. — Scientizzle 19:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete WP:NOR violation and self-promotion by author, Peter borger (talk · contribs). There are no WP:MEDRS sources from which to build an appropriate article.[1] — Scientizzle 19:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can find no WP:RS for this. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no coverage in reliable sources. Maybe even made up. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Largely copyvio from here. Pure original research. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Original research, no RS coverage of a fringe theory. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 14 October 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.