Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidetic imagery


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Eidetic imagery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article, essentially about a supposed special kind of daydreaming, solely promotes a fringe theory, and all its sources totally fail WP:MEDRS, especially WP:MEDDATE. The term itself as used in reliable sources is just a synonym of Eidetic memory; hence a separate article would be a WP:CFORK. A careful reading reveals that most of the article is either WP:SYNTH or sourced to a certain Akhter Ahsen; in total, the article is to promote his ideas.

See this website, which says that Ahsen is the founder of Eidetic Imagery, a cutting edge and innovative field in modern psychology. Note the similarity of the website to the article, like how it talks about the I-S-M model, as the article does under "Practice"; or compare here, the paragraph starting with Its solidly grounded theory..., to the article's claim that Ahsen grounds his eidetic theory in both Eastern and Western traditions of science and philosophy. In addition, it draws on the most recent neuropsychological evidence involving two-process theory and holographic images in the work of Karl Pribram regarding the brain and the discovery of fractals in computer science. Aside from being obviously fringey, it shows that the article is promotional just as that website is. Here is another website promoting Ahsen and his ideas. Supporting that the article is promotional is the fact that it has 85.9% authorship by three different SPAs (and the other 14.1% is likely routine addition of DOIs and the like). One of the SPAs, the article's creator, called themselves Eidetics2008, and all three of them have similar names ending in 2###; they are probably all the same person, likely one with a COI with Ahsen or his circle of followers.

Ahsen's ideas about "eidetic imagery" are not notable, and the article content is completely unsalvageable; hence it should be deleted. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete a highly deceptive article that is making novel claims that are adjacent to notable WP:MAINSTREAM claims (e.g. eidetic memory). At the best, this is WP:SYNTH and the worst, this is WP:HOAX. jps (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I tried to find independent reliable sources but what I find are the promotional main site, a few mentions in directories in relation to interfaith or Sufism, primary papers from Ahsen. I found a few third party personal posts about Ahsen like this but nothing indicating enough notability for an article.  If there was, possibly that this should instead be a biography about him...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an article that promotes a non-notable fringe theory that is not discussed by independent, reliable sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per this discussion where I listed sources and this brief discussion. The terms eidetic memory, eidetic imagery and photographic memory are used to mean the same thing, although the first two are sometimes distinguished from photographic memory. This article is a badly-written WP:Content fork. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd just be repeating what's been said already at this point with more, but it doesn't satisfy WP:NFRINGE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as fringey waffle. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC).
 * Comment: I agree this is probably SYNTH and the article in its present state is certainly unsalvageable. However, there does appear to be such a concept, albeit perhaps not as described there. There are several good quality (and highly cited) journal articles about "eidetic imagery", notably between 1920-1980. What this concept appropriately means, I have no idea, but deleting this one should not be an impediment for someone creating a proper one in the future. Best, PK650 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2020 (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.