Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy (psychological)


 * 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. Mgm|(talk) 01:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Energy (psychological)

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

Pseudoscientific duplicate of energy (esotericism). All content here is already included at the other article. This is not a term rigorously used in psychology. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Keep. While clearly pseudoscience, that isn't enough for it to be deleted. I don't think the article is completely a duplicate of Energy (esotericism), but rather should be linked to in the section on parapsychology.  What I'd do is merge the section on parapsychology into Energy (psychological), link to Energy (psychological) as the main article for Parapsychology on the Energy (esotericism) article, and then expand it.   Flying  Toaster  19:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't Care.  S  B Harris 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Real enough concept in both /Reichian and other theories--the article could be considerably explanded.DGG (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep DGG is a decent editor, I agree with him.MaxPont (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Crappy, duplicate article. But voting keep so SA will stop using AFD to make his point. Move on. -Atmoz (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There may be a valid non-redundantredundant article to be written at this title, but the current content will serve to inhibit rather than promote its creation. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 5 December 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.