Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-random mutation Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Non-random_mutation

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)[reply]

Non-random mutation (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)

Does not appear to meet notability standards. No references, cannot be verified. Contested PROD, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his October 11 reign of terror. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The term non-random mutation 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) 18:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pluripotent multipurpose genome & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variation-inducing genetic element. — Scientizzle 19:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 on the topic presented. However, "Non-random mutation" is a potentially-valid search term and a deletion with a redirect to Mutation could be appropriate (there do exist scientific literature on some types of mutations that are not random, but not in the way that creationists would have you believe). — Scientizzle 19:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Original research, no reliable sources support the material in this stub. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Original research. Abductive (reasoning) 18:39, 12 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.