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

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 : Deleted, unreferenced and non-notable crackpottery copy-and-pasted from a blog. (Perhaps not a copyright violation, though - it may well be the author who posted it to Wikipedia.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primevergen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is a fringe theory. A Google search yielded this cached page which was copy/pasted into Wikipedia. It lacks notability and reliable sources. Senator2029 • talk 13:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Blatant copyvio from a blog. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G12 as blatant copyright violation from a now-deleted (but available via Google archive, as noted above) blog page. In case this is recreated without the copyright violation, I'd also delete on the merits; this is very fringe physics/theology with nothing resembling coverage in a reliable source. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2012 (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.