Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrodevelopment Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Macrodevelopment

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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macrodevelopment

I searched for reliable sources for this evolutionary theory and came up blank. It seems to have some fans in the intelligent design movement, but it's not a notable scientific theory. Fences&Windows 15:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 15:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGE. No independent reliable sources. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism for someone's one man theory: a biological hypothesis that proposes over millions of years the biosphere has nonlinearly unfolded taxa from generic forms to specific forms, in a manner analogous to the way in which a biological embryo develops in the womb. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per, er, everyone so far.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a "scientific theory" that returns zero hits on PubMed, unverifiable. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2009 (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.