Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8th coming

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. Clearly spam, would meet WP:CSD#G11.  Sandstein  05:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

8th coming

8th coming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article appears to be designed to promote a non-notable e-book (it would fail the criteria of WP:BK) and itself is about a non-notable theory or neologism. The claims of links to the Mayan calendar or even Jenkins' book are debatable and unverifiable. The article fails WP:V, WP:NEO and several sections of WP:NOT. PROD removed so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as you are quick to try and make a case, you are doing what you are objecting be done on this site - you are making claims about something you have taken no time to investigate. Your protest is debatable and your denial of my claims (as you call it) is unverifiable. Anyone can have objections and cite Wikipedia policy to make their case. For me it takes energy, time, and art to produce insightful theory and for others only seconds of empty energy to cast doubt (the way of politicians). I have no intention of feeding that emptiness. To clarify again: Mine is not a regurgitated, borrowed, or piggy backed theory, it is new and announced as such. It is Original thought. Can there be a reference to that on a public forum? How often are folks exposed to original thought? My theory is based on the oldest research on the planet including Mayan cosmology (read the book). Referring to John Jenkin's book is very valid and in my book as well (but of course you would know that if you read my book). I am not an attorney to argue its place as Wiki-worthy. My theory is definitely more fact than fiction, it’s researchable. You seem to have objectivity by the way you watchdog Wiki-pages. Read the book, follow up on the sources, then state your challenge. Otherwise, you are only creating a black hole because you have the time and knowledge to follow the protocols of challenge on Wikipedia. I do not. New words are created everyday, all the time, and find their way into Wiki-terms. New theories should be given more consideration for validity than your or anyone’s ability to argue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polymathicjahn (talk • contribs) 08:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You are free to publish your original thoughts on the internet, but this does not make for verifiable articles suitable for Wikipedia. Refer to WP:No original research for the specific policy. Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as spam and original research. -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

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.