Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core energetics


 * 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   keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 14:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Core energetics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Other than a book published by the guy who invented this manifestation of New Age silliness, there's no indication of notability. Joel Why? talk  18:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment My personal attitude is that this is New Age silliness, and the article is certainly not very good, but there are sufficient indications that "core energetics" names something notable enough to have a Wikipedia article -- the book by the originator, their web site, and numerous mentions in Google News. Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Their website does nothing to indicate notability. The book is published with some tiny publisher, so that's not enough for notability. I did a quick google search, but I didn't see much as far as articles. Could you post links to review?    Joel Why?  talk  20:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm only bothering to comment because I came across the article by chance and put a little effort into neutralizing it and adding a reference, and I don't like my work to be wasted, but really I don't care all that much. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Click on the link to search books above and you will see the topic discussed in numerous sources. Clearly notable even if we don't like it. Borock (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a glaring inconsistency in WP rules, when a nominator for the peer-reviewed process of AfD can be guilty of infracting WP:BEFORE for not checking available sources, but any editor can tag that same article with WP:A7 or WP:A9 and delete it without discussion, or bothering to look for sources. Also WP:F4, WP:F7, or WP:F11, without having to look for evidence, or WP:G5 without there having to be anything wrong with the article whatsoever. While the nom did not check Books, at least it was brought to AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not siliness, it is a practice that was developed in 1970, and since then has been popular in other parts of the world. Lunchloopview (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, Deletion request withdrawn Ok, I've found some other sources for this practice. Nomination withdrawn.    Joel Why?  talk  12:52, 22 June 2012 (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.