Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cory swarmer's theory

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 - everyone can make up theories, but only theories that other people comment on are liable to be notable Ϣere SpielChequers 17:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cory swarmer's theory[edit]

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

Original research would be the polite way to describe this bit of global warming related speculation. Web and news searches don't provide any evidence of notability or even existence of this theory. Contested PROD. Favonian (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW delete. Should even be speediable, with a vandalism wanring to follow. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR (I prodded for the same reason). I don't see anything suggesting that this is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, just an editor who isn't aware of what Wikipedia is and isn't. It's obviously something someone made up one day, but certainly doesn't warrant a vandalism warning. matt (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For being completely and utterly original research. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The page was tagged with {{db-g3}}: incoherent gibberish; blatant and obvious misinformation. Naturally, Google shows zero results for "Cory swarmer's theory". — Rankiri (talk) 17:00, 27 January 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.