Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consciousness technology


 * 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 -- JForget  00:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Consciousness technology

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article makes a lot of claims, none of which are addressed by the links provided below.(one of the links to a myspace page and another is a youtube video). A lot reads like OR. Proposed delete as unverifiable. Prashanthns (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Has been speedied twice before. Have removed two of the links as they were completely inappropriate. A youtube link to a dutch video and a myspace page. Pasting here for reference. Prashanthns (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete article serves as an essay to advance the author's POV KevinCuddeback (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (and consider SALT due to determination to re-re-recreate the article despite multiple references to policy). Of key importance to an assessment of WP:SPAM is the final paragraph in which they suggest that practice of this trademarked process is limited "by law" to practitioners whom they themselves have trained.  I don't believe this would ever pass WP:FRINGE in that no specific references in respected peer-reviewed publications are being offered, although a lot of big names are sprinkled throughout the article.  Unfortunately, Google searching is somewhat hampered by the frequency of use of each of the individual words of the protologismic name, but no one seems to me to find this "technology' valid except its own practitioners.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * here's one link which only proves yours and Rob's point. Blatant promotion and business masquerading as science. Prashanthns (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pseudo-science nuttery. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Take a look at this movie here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEH3dsq_Gig, which is also on the MySpace-page of the developer. Then come back to me and tell me exactly what's at stake and in particular who exactly is nuts over here. Thank you very much for your attention, and dream on! Machteld1 (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: The above comment is by the article's primary contributor.Prashanthns (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neologism, spam, unreferenced, something made up in one day, and not notable.  Also, there is no surer way to establish non-notability than by pointing to YouTube and MySpace content as evidence of notability.  KleenupKrew (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Any encyclopaedic article at this title would be a long way in the future.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The term itself does not appear to meet WP:N, and the current article is yet another essay masquerading as science. Maralia (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - NPOV and COI violations in the interest of an unsourced set of claims. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and probably salt so we could quickly remove attempts at re-creation. The argument above trying to justify a keep actually explains why its a delete: the source is a youtube video & a myspace page--the quintessence of unacceptable sources. DGG (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It gives pseudoscience a bad name. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2008 (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.